Tuesday, December 13, 2016

The common law is for subjects.

I keep hearing folks go on and on about the common law. Oh we are common law marshals, and judges and grand juries and yada, yada, yada. Sorry folks but the common law does not mean what you think it means.

Common Law

The ancient law of England based upon societal customs and recognized and enforced by the judgments and decrees of the courts. The general body of statutes and case law that governed England and the American colonies prior to the American Revolution.

The principles and rules of action, embodied in case law rather than legislative enactments, applicable to the government and protection of persons and property that derive their authority from the community customs and traditions that evolved over the centuries as interpreted by judicial tribunals.

The common law is just that which the court has decided before on a case based on the same set of facts. Thus if you are a citizen in a registered motor vehicle, then common law is not going to save you.

The common law is the common law of the subjects, it is the customs and cases from subjects past long before you were born.

There is NO common law for free men, because you need a society and courts in order for there to be a common law.

Free men use natural law, subjects use common law.

I would suggest a couple of links here, and then followed by extensive research on YOUR part for a better understanding.


Monday, December 12, 2016

Freedom, what is it?

           Most of my fellow countrymen think they are free and perhaps they are. I mean a man not in chains and a cage is free to an extent correct? But what is the freedom our hearts beckon us to? Is it the freedom we have in America?

           Most would say not anymore, most would agree that they were able to do more in years past, and the amount of laws passed yearly would be strong evidence in their favor. But where exactly does subjection end and freedom begin?

           Most would also say that Americans have more freedom then any other citizen of any other nation. But is that true? How do our freedoms compare? And did Jefferson not say that all men are created equal with unalienable rights? So how can rights of men in different countries be different?

                                         Civil Rights

            As always lets start with some definitions and common understanding of what we are discussing.

Civil Rights

Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

Civil rights are rights granted by governments to their subjects, no man in any society has his natural unalienable rights, he has traded them for civil rights.

The difference between the two forms of rights, natural vs. civil is wide, and needs a deeper look then what I will give you here. I will say that the bill of rights are nothing but civil rights. We can tell if a right is a civil right a couple of ways. 1. If alone on an island and not in a society, would I have this right? 2. Does this "right" have a fee or permit attached, is it regulated in any way? If so, its a civil right friend.

Right to bear arms.....civil right
Right to gay/straight marriage... civil right
Right to vote.... civil right

The government can regulate or even take away your civil right whenever it wants, hence the gun bans in DC and Chicago for so long.

The concept of freedom is so foreign to most Americans today that I felt compelled to address it here in this post.

A quick google search brings up this thread...

A quick glance will assure you that most have little clue as to what a right is and what it is not. Without this very important information, freedom is a lost concept.

When people think that freedom/rights can be granted, regulated, licensed, etc. Then anything is possible in the deceit of those people, and we can attest to such as time has gone on under the American system of government. As time moves on, more privileges are taken.

It is an absolute must that the nature of our status and obligations as citizens are understood, for if not, we can never truly be free by guessing what the state may or may not, can or can not do.

Thus I implore everyone to use the information presented on this blog, not as a basis for beliefs, but as a starting point for understanding and a dismissal of beliefs as the learning block that blinds us all to certain truths.

Now for those of you who want to understand I offer some links to help you along.


The best understanding you will come to is when you understand the rights you had alone in nature, or alone on a island if you will.

When you come to understand what freedom truly is, you will likely come to the same conclusion that I did, and that is most do not want to be free, and the majority would reject true freedom due to the controlling nature of man and their need to exert control over others, as one of many reasons.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

If you have received a business card

Welcome to my little corner of understanding, here you will find things most have never heard of and most will find hard to believe. That's ok, I was at one time as much a skeptic as you friend. In fact I would be hard pressed to tell tale of anyone not as sheep like as I was.

The government has worked long and hard to direct our beliefs and understanding about society, and it is near impossible to reach most people, hopefully you reading this are the kind of man or woman who would rather die finding the truth then living a lie everyday and hoping things do not fall apart in your lifetime.

Everywhere I look I see confusion, not just in the masses but even within the patriot/law community. The reason for this I have come to find out is simple, our beliefs. Along with our ego's, our beliefs guide us thru information to find the stuff that agrees with what we already hold to be true..... Confirmation bias.

Our leaders have always been working on better ways to control the masses, as this is the main job of government, to keep its subjects happy and docile. They do this thru our own mind, bread and circuses taken to a whole new level. Research the Milgram experiments to see how the government is using some of this information in regards to obeying authority.

Most people are smart, however very few people are intelligent, the difference being the ability to understand how beliefs effect our intake and processing of information. The only way for us to truly understand our world and life in general is to look at our beliefs, and to discard the ones that have no factual backing. I myself say toss all beliefs in favor of idea's. An idea can be changed as new information presents itself, a belief however is almost impossible to change and most times is fought against.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so". Mark Twain

If you can put aside what you know for sure, then you just might find the truth you have always been missing.

Monday, October 17, 2016

In it to win it?

I see a lot of posts these days, all talking about the many ways to get freedom, or to get money from the government from your bond, etc. I can not help but think we are better then this crap, if only we could understand that our beliefs are guiding us down different paths. The amount of blind acceptance I see, for something someone already believes in is massive. People filling notices and doing this and doing that. Fake judges and marshals all talking about restoring the constitution and the real republic. I hate to break it to you folks, but here it is ONE MORE TIME, all as in ALL societies are fictions, and members of a society are not free, nor have they ever been, nor will they ever be. Get it yet?

The very nature of society is that members have rights and obligations to the society they live UNDER, I say under because a society can only exist present rule of law. In other words, a society can not exist where the governed do not have to listen to the law of the government.

And we find in ALL societies, that the government, for the public good of course, soon begins limiting what you can do.

If you want to study law/history/freedom, then do so, Stop listening to every guru and learn the information for yourself, come to that understanding for yourself.

Without it, then no answer a guru gives you is going to keep you out of jail.

Stay safe folks.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

The United States, clearing up the confusion.

Now a LOT of folks think that they were born and live in the United States. This however is wrong, very few of us were born OR live in the United States. First we have to ask, what is the territory of the United States?

Territories of the United States

Portions of the United States that are not within the limits of any state and have not been admitted as states.

---Which makes sense when you consider what the constitution lays out as it's territorial boundaries.---

Art 1 Section 8

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 the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

As the definition states, portions NOT within the limits of any state. Only federally owned land inside a state(aka army base, etc) would be considered as the United States.

Now as to the District which shall be the seat of our government and it's jurisdiction, how many have heard of the boundary stones? Reading this will be eye opening for most.....  http://www.boundarystones.org/articles/rchs_1897.pdf

Now congress has two jobs, one job it does for the union and is limited by the constitution to only what is mentioned, the second job however is to...

Art 4 Section 3
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;

--Make all the needful rules and regulations in relation to their territory. What they do not tell us is if the law they are passing is for the union or the territory.

When people were born in Atlanta before the 14th amendment, then they were born in Georgia, however after the 14th amendment, folks born in that same city of Atlanta were considered born in the United States.

What changed?

First thing that changed was the definition of the term "State", they changed the meaning of this term in 1864 to mean, federal territory. All states after the civil war were now political subdivisions or federal territories. This is confirmed by the 1868 North Carolina inauguration speech from Gov. Worth, just read the first few paragraphs. Also now there are many ways to see it including the Zip Code and SS districts, etc.

So now, when you confess to being born in a state, you are really saying that you are born in the United States, and NOT the separate sovereign State that once was.

Example:  (26) “State” means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession under the jurisdiction of the United States. The term includes an Indian nation or tribe.

This is from a State statute, but you would be hard pressed to tell me which one, because it does not DEFINE State.

Only thru understanding statutory construction can you figure out what this means.

The united states are composed of DC and any land it owns.

Lets run thru an example to help us understand it better.

Lets say I own half the country, and it is called Patland, and you own half the country and you call it Riotland and we decide we need a uniform guidance between our countries and to help each other for defense. We decide to set up a corporation to handle these affairs, we give a part of our land in each country to this new corporation, call it Patriotland. Now, this land is separate from Patland and Riotland, there are different rules for those living and working there, separate from our own countries rules. Being born there would make you a citizen of Patriotland and not a citizen of either country. Same if you were bon in Patland, clearly you are a citizen of Patland and not Riotland, nor could you be a citizen of Patriotland.

The only way they could say that you were born in the United States is because society is a fiction, and not geographically based, but politically based and the "state" is a political subdivision.

Hope this helps....

Monday, October 3, 2016

The bank loan scam part tre

This part is going to be dealing with the funds transfer and some other parts. We start with some definitions to get us on the same page.


In this Article:
(a)  "Funds transfer" means the series of transactions, beginning with the originator's payment order, made for the purpose of making payment to the beneficiary of the order.  The term includes any payment order issued by the originator's bank or an intermediary bank intended to carry out the originator's payment order.  A funds transfer is completed by acceptance by the beneficiary's bank of a payment order for the benefit of the beneficiary of the originator's payment order.
(b)  "Intermediary bank" means a receiving bank other than the originator's bank or the beneficiary's bank.
(c)  "Originator" means the sender of the first payment order in a funds transfer.
(d)  "Originator's bank" means (i) the receiving bank to which the payment order of the originator is issued if the originator is not a bank, or (ii) the originator if the originator is a bank.
(a)  A payment order received by the receiving bank is the authorized order of the person identified as sender if that person authorized the order or is otherwise bound by it under the law of agency.
(d)  The term "sender" in this Article includes the customer in whose name a payment order is issued if the order is the authorized order of the customer under subsection (a), or it is effective as the order of the customer under subsection (b).

Ok from the definitions alone, we see that we are the sender/originator of the first funds transfer/payment order. We issue the payment order when we instruct the bank to pay for the house for us.
Now, a couple of other things here.

From my earlier blog posts we found out that the bank Monetizes our private debt, it then turns around and sells it aka MBS(mortgage backed securities)

Now federal statue 15 usc 78c(10) tells us that any note maturing after 9 months is a security instrument.

The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a “security”; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker’s acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited.

Now the real test is if the instrument ACTS like a security, which by being monetized and securitization, we think that it is.  If it is a security instrument there can be no holder in due course as specified in UCC3-106d.

(d) If a promise or order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder contains a statement, required by applicable statutory or administrative law, to the effect that the rights of a holder or transferee are subject to claims or defenses that the issuer could assert against the original payee, the promise or order is not thereby made conditional for the purposes of Section 3-104(a); but if the promise or order is an instrument, there cannot be a holder in due course of the instrument.


The way to defeat them in this game is to show, using the accounting forms banks are required to file, that we are the creditor and that no "loan" happened. Be it a home, car, or personal loan. The way to do this before a foreclosure action is to write out a QWR (http://consumerfinancialserviceslaw.us/recent-changes-to-the-law-governing-qualified-written-requests/).

For those already in foreclosure, the way to go about it is to file a counterclaim for recoupment or "setoff" as the one side of the books cancels the other side of the books. We can alo ask for the accounting documents thru discovery.

I have won cases using the information, I also do one on one training and I can provide legal information for those in need.

Hope this information helps you out there.

Monday, August 29, 2016

Understanding WHAT you are....... citizen.

Many of us have come to accept that we are citizens, citizens of the united states. But how many of us know what that means? How many of us have researched the word citizen? What are the duties/obligations of citizenship? What "rights" do we have and of what nature are these "rights"? Do citizens have the unalienable rights that Jefferson spoke of? Is it the bill of unalienable rights?

I have many posts already on this blog dealing with just these issues. The facts we should take away from this information is that citizens in any capacity are subjects. Subjects are slaves, forever to obey whatever their rulers tell them is "law". Now as usual, I don't expect folks to believe me, the government has spent A LOT of time and money to make you believe that you are free and the government is your servant.

This belief is not true, it never has been and never will be. The very nature of a fictional society can only work if the government has people it can GOVERN, it is impossible to govern people who do not have to obey your laws. This is basic common sense here folks, no Phd needed to understand how societies work.

I have compiled some quotes for you to show you that our leaders/founders not only understood this, but this was the plan all along.

"In any

and every point of view in which I am able to consider the

subject, Allegiance, in this country, is due to the government of

the people. I have, heretofore, and I shall use throughout this

opinion, the term Allegiance, because it is the one most commonly

used to denote the duty of the citizen to the government."
And just what is this duty to the government?
"but I will passingly remark
that the government may, under the authority of the Constitution, demand of the citizen the surrender of the last dollar
•which he possesses, and to peril his life in its defence, if the
public good requires"
BOTH quotes above are from the book of allegiance, (south Carolina court reporter) 1834
1st quote page 214, 2nd quote page 233, both from the judge's opinion's.
And just why does a citizen owe his last dollar or his life in defense of the country?
Take this quote from James Kent on American law in 1826....
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)
I also hate to break it to all the state nationals/state citizens, ALL governments require subjection, they were no more free as state citizens then as federal US citizens.
Lets follow their reasoning for a minute......

 State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122: "the term 'citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
"The persons declared to be citizens are, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,
but completely subject..."
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884)
So what this says to me, is that a US citizen is a subject of the federal government.
so the classes in America are now this...
last: Citizens/subjects; Have to obey federal government, pay for the whole deal, low class of benefits that most are shamed if they take.
middle class: Federal employees; Paid to obey, tons more benefits then the lower class, mostly paid for by lower class.
upper class: Government and benefactors of government regulations/laws; Pay for nothing, insider information on all aspects of life, above the laws the lower two classes are subject too. 
I was going to include citizens rights in this post, but I will save it for part 2, this alone will be a little much for most of your beliefs to handle.
I do however want to leave you with a link to one of my other posts, to help enlighten you about the role you play in relation to the government...
Enjoy citizen!

Saturday, August 27, 2016

The scam called a bank loan part deux

In part deux of the bank loan scam we investigate if banks loan out deposits.

Lets take a look at federal reserve bank publication Modern Money Mechanics...

course, they do not really pay out loans from the money
they receive as deposits
. If they did this, no additional
money would be created.

Also in the same publication under "expansion stage 1"

Loans are made by
crediting the borrower's deposit account, i.e.,
by creating additional deposit money.


I highlighted CREDITING because it again reinforces the point, this was a currency swap, they are crediting you, not "loaning" you. And again they are creating this money they are giving to you, which is really just bank credit.

Lets take a look at another federal reserve bank publication, "i bet you thought" was put out by the NY fed to help dispel myths about money....


Banks create money by "monetizing" the private debts of businesses, individuals and governments. That is, they create amounts of money against the value of those lOUs.

And there you have the key, they MONETIZE the private debt(promissory note).

What does 'Monetize' mean

To monetize is to convert an asset or any object into money or legal tender.

Read more: Monetize Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monetize.asp#ixzz4HMzDpFha
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So how do they monetize your debt?

Well a promissory note is a negotiable instrument per UCC (check your state statutes)


We are the "Issuer/Maker of the instrument

(a) "Issue" means the first delivery of an instrument by the maker or drawer, whether to a holder or nonholder, for the purpose of giving rights on the instrument to any person.
Lets go check some definitions....
Drawer" means a person who signs or is identified in a draft as a person ordering payment.
"Maker" means a person who signs or is identified in a note as a person undertaking to pay.
To go on, we need to understand the definitions of "payment order" and "funds transfer".
So now we understand that we are the originator of the first funds transfer.

More on the funds transfer aspect in part 3.

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

The scam called a bank loan.

I talk with many folks about the bank loan process, and most know little to nothing about it. Hopefully this post can help clear a little bit of it up for folks.

The loan process has many moving parts and for most it is hard to keep up, this post will be a lot easier for you to understand.

In order for you to pledge your promise to pay back a loan, the creditor must have suffered a legal detriment.

In contract law, consideration is a detriment to the promisee and a benefit to the promisor. In order to make for a valid contract and for legal detriment to have been suffered, consideration must be exchanged.

To incur detriment means to cement a promise by either refraining from doing something that one has a legal right to do or by doing something that one is not under any legal obligation to do.

Now at this point most of americans would assume the legal detriment is the bank loaning you money, if in fact they did loan you money, but in fact they did not.

In fact the "money" lent to you was in fact legally required and NOT something they were not under obligation to provide.

And just why is that you ask?

Because as the federal reserve bank publication (modern money mechanics) points out......

What they do when they make
loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits
to the borrowers' transaction accounts.

Important to notice here are the words EXCHANGE and CREDITS.

Both the promissory note and the credits are called MONEY OF ACCOUNT


Definition of money of account
  1. :  a denominator of value or basis of exchange which is used in keeping accounts and for which there may or may not be an equivalent coin or denomination of paper money

The promissory note when deposited acts as cash as per federal law definition of the word DEPOSIT...


(l) Deposit

The term “deposit” means—
the unpaid balance of money or its equivalent received or held by a bank or savings association in the usual course of business and for which it has given or is obligated to give credit, either conditionally or unconditionally, to a commercial, checking, savings, time, or thrift account, or which is evidenced by its certificate of deposit, thrift certificate, investment certificate, certificate of indebtedness, or other similar name, or a check or draft drawn against a deposit account and certified by the bank or savings association, or a letter of credit or a traveler’s check on which the bank or savings association is primarily liable:
, That, without limiting the generality of the term “money or its equivalent”, any such account or instrument must be regarded as evidencing the receipt of the equivalent of money when credited or issued in exchange for checks or drafts or for a promissory note upon which the person obtaining any such credit or instrument is primarily or secondarily liable, or for a charge against a deposit account, or in settlement of checks, drafts, or other instruments forwarded to such bank or savings association for collection.
We also know this is true for a number of other reasons...
1. A holder in due course MUST accept the instrument for VALUE
2. In order to enforce a lost note the bank must indemnify.
The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.
I will finish writing this up if there are those interested in learning more about it.

Monday, July 25, 2016


A big part of the play that we call our life today is affected by INTENT, as in our state of mind and our intentions. When trying to assert freedom, intent plays a huge part of the whole picture. Changing your status will mean nothing if your intentions are not in line with what you are saying.

Thankfully showing intent while researching our position is an easy enough process. I do it by using bumper stickers on my car detailing my intent, I also print shirts that tell folks of my intent and mindset. I run a blog and youtube channel speaking of the same subject matter and my intent as well.

When it is time for status change, it is clear not only by my declaration, but my intent has been well known for years now as to me not belonging to their political society.

If you think you can accept government benefits and such one day, and then change status and you are good, then friend you are mistaken. When confronted about your status, you best make damn sure, you have years of evidence backing your intent to be free. If you have to use a government program or benefit, say FRN'S, then make a public declaration about how you are using it because you must.

About intent, let us take a look at 8 USC 1481(b)

Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
Now let us look at the legal definition of the word intent.


A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.
Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act.

Let start showing our intent folks.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Law/sovereign guru's that are teaching the wrong info.

I recently told my facebook wall that I would no longer be posting any law stuff. One of the main reasons is because there is a disconnect within the research community. As with all disconnects it has to do with beliefs, beliefs handed down and never vetted.

The link I am about to provide is filled with errors, and beliefs that are not true. I will post the link, I will then quote some of these false beliefs and tell you why they are wrong.


gives you the right to collect the interest on your “business they created”

 This sounds to be a part of the "redemption" a lot of these researchers are interested in. The story goes that your BC is a bond or such and is worth money, the account is with the treasury.

I have many issues with this "redemption" process, first of all, why does none of the guru's teaching this show up in a lambo? Is it because they have not tapped into their account? Or is it because they have no real clue about any of what they say actually working and hope you will file the paperwork so they can see what works or what does not work? When reading this kind of research, you have to be careful or disinfo will have you spending all your time on something that does not matter. Second problem I have with this, is that we are looking for freedom AKA personal responsibility not handouts from the government, EVEN IF there is an account with tons of funny money in it, I have no want for it, let them losers keep it for all I care. I am trying to get away from these fools not get more benefits from them.

This seems to be a template for a change or declaration of domicile, except upon inspection we see that he changed his domicile from one fiction (us government) to another fiction (state government). One of the main beliefs that is catching researchers up is the belief that state citizens were free men. They never were, and when pressed about this fact, these researchers shut down and wont talk to you. Heck some even kicked me out of their group for daring to question their beliefs. When one of these guru's can not explain their process nor show any results like court video or transcripts, then chances are they are blowing smoke up your ass.

While I think domicile is the key to our freedom, it only works if you use it correctly. Now  to find out if something works, simply look for what does NOT work. we can find out what does not work by searching court cases. Lucky for us, quatloos forum has compiled a bunch of losing arguments by guru's and common folk.


also fogbow


Of course these are both staffed with hardcore belief zombies, they do mean well and provide some important information about what NOT to use.

I keep repeating myself, but only because it appears no one is listening. In order to learn this stuff, we must toss aside what we think we know. This belief that "citizens" were free under any type of government is false, and I challenge ANY guru to prove me wrong and that state citizens were free men.

DO NOT allow your beliefs to affect what you are researching folks, while these guru's provide some good research, it is always best to question everything, including everything I write.

Good luck friends.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Sources on the second amendment.

Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)

              The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  {[In Story's Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840), the following two sentences are also added:] One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.  The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.}           

  The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject.  The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.  It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.  The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.  And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.  How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.  There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.


Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)

              Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.            

 The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."              

The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.              

The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.         

    Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army.  A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.            
 What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression.


Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress.  All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms.  Here, in relevant part, is their text:

              New Hampshire:  Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.            

 Virginia:  . . .  Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.  That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.              

New York:  . . .  That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection.  That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.              

North Carolina:  Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."           

  Rhode Island:  Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.

           Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions

              Second Amendment:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.            

 English Bill of Rights:  That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689).            

 Connecticut:  Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).            
 Kentucky:  [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).              

Massachusetts:  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780).              
North Carolina:  [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).                   

Pennsylvania:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).               The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790).            

 Rhode Island:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842).                    
Tennessee:  [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796).            

 Vermont:  [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777).                   

Virginia:  That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


sources and more info here........  http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC2

and here......  http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendII.html

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Time to educate our self.

By now I am sure you have figured out that education was not what the public school was about, if like me you search for more knowledge, then please enjoy the links here. I will add more as I come across them, feel free to leave any that you may know in the comment section.



Also remember that google books and google scholar has some good resources as well.

Law books for download....  http://www.freebookcentre.net/Law/Law-Books.html

Early texts, great stuff here.....  http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/texts

Logical fallacies   .....  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Early legislative sessions and papers.......... https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsp.html

Awesome.........   http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwusing.html

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Dred Scott

For those of you who do not know, this case was about a slave, whose owner took him to a free state to live and then back into a slave state. The slave thinking that living in a free state made him a free man filed a lawsuit. He lost, and understanding why is important for us to understand how we are ruled today.

(quote from the case below)
thus "[not] a member of the political community formed
(end quote)

Now think about this for a second, this man, Dred Scott, lived, worked, slept, pooped and did everything els...(tharr be more)e a man does, but was not a member of the community. When every other man was, why do you think that was?


The word SLAVE is a status given to him by law in order to control him, a "MAN".

Just like STATUS is used to control YOU and ME today. This is easy enough to prove. Here in America, land of justice for ALL, where every law applies to ALL men/women, we find NO LAW applies to ANY MAN/WOMAN.

You are all like WTF is he talking about.

Pick up or google your state or federal statutes, Notice that NO LAW apllies to MEN/WOMEN.

However the laws DO apply to Citizens/Residents/Taxpayers/Employers/Employees
And many more "Statuses" that government calls us by in order to control us.

Most laws apply to "PERSONS"

Well, "PERSONS" are MEN/WOMEN with legal personality, or men with(you guessed it)Statuses.

Get a clue people, shit is going down right in front of your face.

Monday, May 9, 2016

For those who want to understand beliefs more...

Here is some links I dug up for you to start learning just how much beliefs affect you.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm  START HERE


http://www.positivehealth.com/article/mind-matters/how-our-beliefs-affect-our-lives    --this one is a great read.

http://www.virtualsalt.com/infobias.htm   pay attention to number 7


Quote from above link...

Belief Perseverance

Research has shown that it is quite difficult to do away with a falsehood once an individual comes up with a rationale for it. An example of this would be when the first copies of bibles created by the newly-invented Gutenberg printing press went on sale, his partner that brought the bibles to a certain town was accused of being a witch, because only by black magic would it have been possible to so perfectly reproduce copies such as the ones he had, and that the printing press must be an instrument of the devil. Individuals will retain their invented explanations for their beliefs because of their ego not willing to surrender to the possibility that they are wrong and would have to shift their paradigm. Even after being thoroughly discredited, a firmly-instilled belief will be very difficult to change. Studies have shown that it is easier to formulate a belief than change a belief already formulated. This can explain why there are so many peculiar beliefs surrounding a myriad of things still today. The more we examine our theories and explain how they might be true, the more closed we become to information that challenges our beliefs. This is important to remember, so that we keep an open mind all the time and welcome different positions of awareness concerning a particular subject rather than keeping rigidly to one particular perception of an issue.


Bottom line is this folks, you have to forget what you think you know and start all over again. You have government installed beliefs fed to you from birth till death. When you experience things the government does that you think are wrong, or can not understand why or how the government could do something, those are glitches in the freedom program the government installed on your hard drive. Wipe the drive, start over.

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

The problem with education.

The problem with education is that it works exactly how it is supposed to. Modern education as we know it was set up mainly by that great guy Rockefeller. Just such a giver, with a heart of gold. You can find the amount of influence he had here..


You can also go further and find out the money he gave to other institutions before he funded the GEB here..


Where we can see he started the university of Chicago.

"Mr. Rockefeller's gifts to the University of Chicago total

The reason for his giving was not based on his wanting to uplift humanity, but instead to control it.

Woodrow Wilson, from an address to The New York City High School Teachers Association, Jan. 9th, 1909

"Let us go back and distinguish between the two things that we want to do; for we want to do two things in modern society. We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks. You cannot train them for both in the time that you have at your disposal. They must make a selection, and you must make a selection. I do not mean to say that in the manual training there must not be an element of liberal training; neither am I hostile to the idea that in the liberal education there should be an element of the manual training. But what I am intent upon is that we should not confuse ourselves with regard to what we are trying to make of the pupils under our instruction. We are either trying to make liberally-educated persons out of them, or we are trying to make skillful servants of society along mechanical lines, or else we do not know what we are trying to do."

 Now notice that he says "we are trying to make skillful SERVANTS....along mechanical lines.

Strange then that the men who started this system were men of industry. But not strange at all when you realize these same men spent the money on research to find out that if you mold peoples beliefs, you control them.

How important are beliefs when it comes to learning?

Take this quote from the legal book "essentials of paralegalism" 4th edition....pg # xv

3. You must force yourself to suspend what you already know about the law in order to be able to absorb (a) that which is new and (b) that which conflicts with your prior knowledge and experience.

To bad they did not put that in the front of every textbook.

None of us can be educated until we realize how our beliefs control information intake, and then toss out the misguided beliefs they use to control us with.

Until next time folks.


Friday, April 8, 2016

Right 2 Know wear

 I have decided to start helping educate the masses, and short of billboards, the best thing I can think of is bumper stickers and t-shirts. We need shocking court dicta and quotes that get the point across to the sheep that things are not what they seem.

We also need to assert our rights in a public fashion, as not only to impress upon others how to, but also for evidence of our intent to be free men. With that said, stickers and shirts will be black with white letters, most sizes.

 I will be starting with stickers and starting shirts a couple of weeks from now. Stickers are 3 dollars and shirts are 20 dollars plus S&H, paypal is fine, also you have to email me with your order (patriotdiscussions@gmail.com). I will update the list of stickers and shirts as we go, any special requests can be emailed to me as well. I will also be adding photo's as soon as I can.


1.  I only answer questions that pertain to the reason for the stop.
2. I record all interactions with government agents.
3. NOT a citizen!
4. I travel, I do not drive.
5. Non commercial  Not for hire
6. Citizen=Subject=Slave
7. Freedom does not require Taxes, Fees, Fines, Permits or Licenses


1.  Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability." United States of America v. William M. Slater (D. Delaware) 545 F.Supp 179, 182 (1982)

2. “Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life, because they’re not tempted to think about any other role.”
-William Torrey Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education from 1889-1906.

3. "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122: "the term 'citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."

4. Supreme Court: US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957:
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States."

5. Citizenship is a political status, and may be defined and privilege limited by Congress.
Ex Parte (NG) Fung Sing, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 6, Page 670 (1925)

6. “The most erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.”
H.L. Mencken

7.  12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

      Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

8.  5 U.S. Code § 552a - Records maintained on individuals

     (13). The term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).


“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) (‘ ’).
10.   Oliver v halstead 196 va 992

"There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law."

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Information or disinformation?

When researching any topic, we not only have to deal with the author's bias but any intentional disinformation as well. Now the information the author gives us may not be known to be disinformation by the author. A lot of times people find information that confirms their beliefs and pass it along without researching anything on the topic.

This happen more often then people think, along with that we also have those in authority always informing us that we HAVE to do something because the law requires it. When that happens to you, how often do you question it? How often do you say "oh the law requires it? what law would that be"?

Now part of the way this fraud has held us down is this, we actually police ourselves. When one of the herd starts to question, the rest move him back into line or at least attempt to. One of the most effective forms of propaganda IMHO is peer pressure. I'm sure we could all remember our days in high school, and wanting to be a part of some group/click. In order to fit in, we changed our hair, our clothes and even our beliefs, all to fit in. Of course this all makes sense because humans are social creatures, and not only crave but NEED the approval and acceptance of our peers. Keeping up with the Jones's, you know what I am talking about.

So how can we fight against misinformation and herd thinking? A hard and fast rule I like to use is to QUESTION EVERYTHING. I do not have beliefs, I have anti-beliefs, I have an idea, I have no concrete unchangeable belief. I have to research everything(that is life structure involved, economics, banking, law, history, etc) that affects my life and the life of my children.

As it stands right now, we give up close to 50% of our income thru taxes, fees, fines, etc. This is freedom? Because the debt is growing ever larger then I take it my kids will have to give up 75% of their wages as a payment to enjoy "freedom"?

You ever get that "wtf did the government just do/say?" I call those moments "glitches in the freedom program". People do not even understand the reasons that do what they do anymore. An example would be gay marriage, gays have always had the righto get married, heck they could of had a friend ordained and married and just witnessed it in their/a family bible. What they could not do was enjoy the state benefits without state permission to marry. However most of the benefits(except for strictly government benefits like SS, etc.) could of been handle thru trusts, contracts, etc.

When new churches are started they incorporate because they want to get tax exempt status from the government. The funny thing is, according to irs regulations they do not have to incorporate or get 501c3 status to be tax exempt.

But no one questions anything ever. We except that this is the way things are, we never look to see how things got this way or even if it is truly supposed to be this way.

Study, Study, Study.

Put down the remote, turn on some music and pick up that book. Remember, knowledge is a lot more sexy then stupidity.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Terms of art

In order to help us understand the laws we are reading, we have to understand how they were created. To do that we need to study. Here is a link to a book to help get you started.


Statutes and statutory construction(Sutherland 1904).

Now for better understanding we want to go with older books, I have found that the newer the books, the more disinfo inside.

Studying the origins of words help us to understand what they really mean as well. This  http://www.etymonline.com/  is a helpful resource for that.

What exactly ARE terms of art you ask?

In every profession certain terms take on their own definition, apart from that which the majority of society thinks the word might mean. Hence the fact that we have law dictionaries that contain a lot of the same words as Webster's.

Term of Art

A word or phrase that has special meaning in a particular context.

A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning. Terms of art abound in the law. For example, the phrase double jeopardy can be used in common parlance to describe any situation that poses two risks. In the law, Double Jeopardy refers specifically to an impermissible second trial of a defendant for the same offense that gave rise to the first trial.

Now for the definition of the word "TERM"

The reason for this definition is to help you understand how they define words that mean something different then what you think.

Irs section 7701 is the definitions page, notice that they do not define "words", they define "terms".


An expression, word, or phrase that has a fixed and known meaning in a particular art, science, or profession. A specified period of time.

Now to understand it even better, we must look to the rules of statutory construction to see what is happening.

here is two links for you to go over to help you understand how it all works...



Now looking at irs definitions page 7701.


The first thing you should notice is that they are defining TERMS and not WORDS.

(9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

Ok so you say this seems pretty plain, the states and dc. But what is a state?

(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.

So by this definition, the term states mean dc only.

How so you say?

First it is the TERM state and not the WORD state.
Second, while the word include is a word of expansion, rules of statutory interpretation limit that expansion to words of the same class as those written.

So when we look in federal law and see that the "state" includes dc, territories,etc then that is what the word can only mean. so state means a federal territory.

Congress changed the word state in 1864, Thomas Clark's " purging America of the matrix" has a more through run down on that.


We are also given clues to this when we look thru history, for example the 1868 North Carolina inauguration speech....

In the midst of the progress of these events we are astounded by a proposition,
originated by North Carolinians, and brought before Congress under auspices calculated
to alarm us, that North Carolina, one of the original thirteen, is no longer a State, but a
territory of the United States.


Words mean everything in law, who can forget Clinton's "depends on what "is" means"?

Study hard folks.