Thursday, November 9, 2017


This looks to be a great find for those of us looking to find answers, as always i will upload the whole book to my groups files, you can also grab it off google books for free.

And as always, some quotes......

Chapter 2

The law of the place of the domicile prevails to so great an extent in determining, not only the status, capacities, and rights of persons, but the title to move-able, or personal property, that it is necessary to ascertain what constitutes the domicile, how it is acquired, and how it may be changed.

It is acquired at the time of birth, and is called the natural, or paternal, but more frequently, and more appropriately, the domicile of origin. It is that which a child receives from his parents, and which he retains after their death, until he has made choice of another domicile.

The place of birth constitutes that which is termed the domicile ratione originis. This may not be the place in which the birth actually happened, as where the mother was delivered of the child on a journey. (a) The domicile of origin of a child born on the high seas, is the domicile of his parents. (b) The civil law regarded those born in any of the islands, as natives of the state to which the island belonged. A child born in wedlock acquires the domicile of his father, " Patris originem unusquisque sequitur." But an illegitimate child acquires that of his mother, " Ejus, qui justum patrem non habet, prima origo a matre." (c)


The presumption of law is, that the domicile of origin is retained, unless the change is proved. The burden of proving the change is cast on him who alleges it. (a) The domicile of origin prevails, until the party has not only acquired another, but has manifested, and carried into execution, an intention of abandoning his former domicile, and acquiring another as his sole domicile. (6)

The presumption in favour of the domicile of origin exists only when it is doubtful whether any other place has been chosen as that of a permanent or principal residence. It is repelled, when it clearly appears that all connexion with it has ceased, and the person's establishment has been formed in some other place. The latter is the domicile of choice.


A new domicile cannot be acquired by intention alone : " Domicilium re et facto transfertur non nuda contestatione ;" (f) but having been once acquired, it may be retained by intention, without actual residence. Neither can it be acquired by residence alone, however long, without that intention. But, on the other hand, a domicile maybe acquired by residence for a single day, if that intention be clearly established.

The place of residence is, prima facie, the domicile, unless there be some motive for that residence, not in consistent with a clearly established intention to retain a permanent residence in another place.

 As the intention with which the new residence is taken may be often the subject of doubt and uncertainty, the Code affords the means by which it may be established, by permitting the party to declare his domicile to the mu nicipality of the place which the party has abandoned, and to that of the place to which he has transferred his domicile. Such declaration affords conclusive evidence of the existence of the intention. (a)


As the intention with which the new residence is taken may be often the subject of doubt and uncertainty, the Code affords the means by which it may be established, by permitting the party to declare his domicile to the mu nicipality of the place which the party has abandoned, and to that of the place to which he has transferred his domicile. Such declaration affords conclusive evidence of the existence of the intention. (a)

Boullenois admits that the status of the person de pends on the law of his actual domicile, but he makes an exception in respect of the status of majority or minority, which he insists depends on the law of the domicile of origin. (c) Merlin, in the earlier edition of his '* Repertoire Universel, strenuously maintained the same opinion. (d) He has, however, since changed it, and is to be added to the number of those who consider that the status of majority or minority is governed by the law of the actual domicile, and not of the domicile of origin, (e)

page 131.....

It is an indispensable rule of law, as exercised in all civilized countries, that a man who contracts in a country, engages for a competent knowledge of the law of contracts in that country. If he rashly presume to contract without such knowledge, he must take the inconveniences resulting from such ignorance upon himself, and not attempt to throw them upon the other party, who has engaged under a proper knowledge and sense of the obligation which the law would impose upon him by virtue of that engagement. (a)

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Institutes of American Law 1851

A very informative book that i would suggest you take some time out to look over. I of course have taken the liberty of quoting some of it here for your reading and understanding.

TITLE II.—OF LAWS. 8. To make a law, there must be a superior, who has authority to make it, and an inferior, who is bound by it. To complete the definition of law, we must say that it is a rule prescribed by a lawful superior.

CHAPTER HI.—OF MUNICIPAL LAW. 11. Various definitions have been given of munici pal or civil law. According to Mr. Justice Blackstone, it is "a rule of civil conduct, prescribed by the supreme power in the state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong." This definition has been justly criticised, the latter part has been considered superabundant, and the first too general and indefinite, and too limited in its signification, to convey a just idea of the subject. Mr. Chitty defines it to be " a rule of civil conduct, prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what shall be done and what shall not be done."(6) But this does not appear to distinguish between a law which may have the form of a judgment and a general law, as, for example, that Primus shall pay Secundus a certain sum of money. Laws should apply to all the citizens, (c) Civil or municipal law is a rule of conduct prescribed to all the citizens by the supreme power in the state, in conformity to the constitution, on a matter of common interest. It is the solemn declaration of the legislative power, by which it commands, under certain penalties or certain rewards, what each citizen should do, not do, or suffer, for the common good of the state. In order fully to comprehend the subject, let us con sider the several parts of this definition. 1 . It being the civil law, it of course prescribes rules of civil conduct only. This distinguishes it from the moral law, which is regulated by the law of nature or the revealed law.

In considering the people of the United States they may be classed as follows : those born in the country, and those born out of it. CHAPTER I.—OF THOSE BORN IN THE COUNTRY. 40. The natives, or persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, in any state or territory, have not all the same rights, some being citizens, and others not; some having all their civil rights, and others being deprived of them.

CHAPTER II.—OF THE STATE OR CONDITION OF A PERSON. 138. The word state or condition of persons, has various acceptations. When we speak of a person, we consider only the part a man plays in society, without taking into view the individual. State and person are then correlative terms. If we inquire into its origin, the word state will be found to come from the Latin status, which is derived from the verb stare, sto, whence has been made statio, which signifies the place where a person is located, stat, to fullfil the obligations which are imposed upon him. (b) State, then, is that quality which belongs to a per son in society, and which secures to, and imposes upon him, different rights and duties, in consequence of the differences of that quality. 139. Although all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality, yet there are among them marked natural differences. The distinctions of sex, parentage, age, youth, etc., all come from nature. To these natural qualities, the civil or municipal laws have added distinctions which are purely civil and arbitrary, founded on the manners of the people, or the will of the legislature.

PART II.—OF THE ENJOYMENT AND LOSS OF CIVIL RIGHTS. TITLE I.—OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 196. Whatever may be the theories which have been adopted in other countries in order to establish a civil state, or the combination of all the power of a society of men under a particular direction, in the United States we need not have any recourse to them, because the foundation of our government is a com pact or agreement of the people establishing the civil state, the constitution. The first law of the civil state is the establishment of a public power to cause the execution of the laws, which shall not be exercised by any individual of the society : he is not permitted to do himselfjustice, but must appeal in all cases when required to the deposi tories of the public authority, or to the power of all for the surety of all, whenever he can have recourse to it. Hence the maxim that all the people are under the protection of the law. All rights flow from the same source, the whole of the laws which concern the state ; but they may be divided conveniently into political rights and civil rights.

200. In entering into society, man yields up a part of his natural independence in exchange for the advantages he receives from society ; and in consideration of those advantages he becomes bound to obey the laws which the majority have established. This species of constraint is far preferable to the ferocious liberty of a state of nature ; for if he is restrained, others are also prevented from doing him any injury.

CHAPTER m.—OF THE DOMICIL OF CHOICE. 233. The domicil of origin is retained until another is acquired by the act of the party, or by operation of law. In order to acquire a domicil of choice, there must be an actual removal with an intention of resid ing in the place to which the party has removed.(a) As soon as the removal is completed, with such inten tion, the new domicil is acquired, and the old one is lost. (6) A mere intention to remove, unless such intention be carried into effect, is not sufficient to operate the change, (c) When a man changes his domicil and gains another, and afterwards returns to his original domicil with an intention to reside there, his original domicil is at once restored. (a)

SECTION 2. OF THINGS WHICH CANNOT BE THE OBJECTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. 423.—2. Things extra patrimonium, or those in which no private property can be had by individuals, exclusively from the rest of mankind, are, 1, those which are common to all men ; 2, those which belong to the public generally; 3, those which belong to cities or municipal corporations. § 1.—Of things common. 424. Things common are the heavens, the light, the air, and the sea, which cannot be appropriated by any man or set of men, so as to deprive others of the use of them. (a) It is evident that no private property can be had in the heavens, the light, the air, and the sea, which belong equally to all men, and are indispensable to their existence. All men have the right to navigate the sea, and to fish there, (b) § 2.—Of things public. 425. Res pvblica, or things public, are those the property of which is in the state, and their use is common to all its members, as navigable rivers, harbors, the sea shore, highways, bridges, and the like.

Sunday, October 29, 2017


TITLE III.—OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE CIVIL STATE. 223. After having examined how civil rights are acquired and lost, it is proper now to consider how the civil state is proved. This may be done by proof of possession, by witnesses, by private writings and by public registers. And this proof relates to the birth, marriage, or death of the individual. When written evidence exists as to the time and circumstances of the birth, marriage, or death of an individual, made by public authority, or a register such as is recognized by law, it must be produced as being the best evidence the case will admit, but, when such writ ten evidence does not exist, parol evidence may be given to establish those facts. 224. Proof of the birth of a child may be made by giving evidence of possession. When a child lives with his reputed father and mother, as such, proof of these facts will, in general, be sufficient prima facie to establish the fact of his legitimacy, and that he is what his condition represents him to be. His civil state may also be proved by the testimony of witnesses, as where the witness was present at the accouchement ; or by private writings, such as entries in a bible ; or by the correspondence of deceased members of his family, (a) It may also be established by public registers, authorized by law to be kept. (6) 225. The civil state of marriage is proved either by direct evidence, establishing the fact, or by evidence of collateral facts and circumstances, from which its existence may be inferred. What is evidence for this purpose will be more fully considered when we come to examine what are the sufficient proofs of a marriage. (c)

Institutes of American Law 1851

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Step 3

Now that we have got the learning part down, we can actually start to apply what we are learning. The intent part is the longest part of changing our domicile and status. Only thru a mans actions can you tell his intent. And what is his intent, what is he trying to say thru his actions?

Two modes in life.
1. Subject, usually a member of a society, but in some places might actually still be a slave.
2. Free man, not a member of society, owing nothing to anyone but himself/kin.

Would a free man be getting a local library card by saying he is a member/resident of the fictional society? Or would he be paying a few dollars extra for the non resident card?

Society has a lot of benefits they use to entrap you with, it ain't all food stamps and section 8.

National banks are instrumentalities of the federal government, created for a public purpose, and as such necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States. It follows that an attempt by a state to define their duties or control the conduct of their affairs is absolutely void wherever such attempted exercise of authority expressly conflicts with the laws of the United States and either frustrates the purpose of the national legislation or impairs the efficiency of these agencies of the federal government to discharge the duties for the performance of which they were created. These principles are axiomatic, and are sanctioned by the repeated adjudications of this Court.

How else besides not engaging in the benefits for obligation scheme the government has going can we express our intent? 

I love to use public declarations, lets tell everyone what we are thinking, let us match our words to our actions, in order to create the intent.

Intent is a huge part, if you want to be free in the future, i suggest you start showing your intent today.

STEP 3 part 2

Statutes and statutory construction

One thing everyone needs to understand, if you can not read this stuff, you are better off just being a sheep. In order to find out if laws apply to us, or why they apply to us, we have to understand what they are telling us.

For the sanity of us all, never ever take another mans word on what something means, be it a case, statute, contract or anything else of importance in your life. Everyone sees things differently because of their beliefs.

I went and grabbed a link for a book to help you with this part, the hard part is tearing yourself away from the tv/facebook in order to read it. Remember knowledge only comes to those who look for it.

Time to get busy folks.

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 (, 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

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....

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.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

The Dejure Republic

Hello folks, patriotdiscussions back to crush some beliefs, hopes and dreams. It seems one of the biggest beliefs in the freedom movement is this "Dejure Republic", a time when men were men and common law ruled, men were free from obligations and statutory law.

This is one of the biggest problems with the freedom movement, they believe something that never was, citizens were never free, not before the civil war, not after it. The only thing the 14th amendment did was change WHO are master was, that is all.

A simple look at a states laws before the 14th amendment will clearly show you that no such "dejure republic" of freemen existed.

The state could not wait to start regulating its new citizens.

take bottom of page 4, top of page 5 here

Notice how anyone who buys land in the county must register it with the sheriff, if not the land is considered "vacant".

They got right to work on the poor laws, you think it was the democrats that placed the poor on the public teet? More like the founders of your great republic states....

Here is a very extensive list of North Carolina's early laws.

I hate to AGAIN break these beliefs down, but a society of free men is not possible, it would be anarchy. Anarchy means no rulers, and free men have no rulers.

This belief of this magical republic will in fact keep you a slave till the day you die.

Now not to worry friends,i know your response is the same as the guy in this video....

The good news is this, the truth will go on being the truth, it does not care if you think it is true or not. Truth naturally goes thru three stages

Why does truth go thru three stages? Because the mind does not hold as truth something that conflicts with a already held belief. As most truth comes to us as a replacement for an already held truth, it naturally finds friction

Who told you about this Dejure Republic where men were free to not listen to those who governed them? Oh i see, government approved and funded textbooks eh?

Lose this belief or lose any chance you have to become free......THIS is the second step.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

The regulated family unit, mandatory vaccines and why it must be so.

Hello folks, touching base on an important issue for lots of folks. Today a post on one of my vaccine FB groups caught my eye. Of course i don't think it needs to be said that i am anti-vax for a number of reasons, most non vaccine related. The post had to deal with mandatory vaccines, and i wanted to clue everyone into why these WILL be coming, the reasons behind it, and what you can do about it.

As the title suggests, we must start with the family first.

As we all know, or at least should know, the family is the most essential building block of ANY society. It forms the basis of any society you can think of, and as the basis for our society, and promoting the "general welfare" of our society, it is the states number one priority.

Lets look at some cases to see what the courts think or thought about the family unit. Now some of these are old cases, maybe even overturned. We are not writing a legal document however,we are simply looking for their reasoning, aka why they do what they do.

First, lets visit an Illinois Appellate Court judgment from 1997:
Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108:
Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.
Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.
…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State
Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926).
The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.
Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953).
This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family.   The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life.   Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity.
Also, this case law states…
The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.
Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645.

This thinking has "trickled down" to us thanks to government propaganda, and we become a self policing belief zombie like the author of this blog...

look at this gem in the rough that he posted....

Parents are responsible for protecting that interest as best they can, but matters of public health are also something we delegate to the state. The state has a responsibility to protect the interests of not only children but all of its citizens. Preventing disease and stopping epidemics is part of this.

So not only do you have to fight the state, you have these folks out there willing giving shit up. So be afraid friends because sooner or later, mandatory vaccines for the "general welfare, public good, public interest" will be getting forced down your throat.

They will do this in a problem, reaction, solution type of ordeal.

When they pass mandatory vax, if you run, hide, try to fight it out, you will get burned out like at waco, they will label you domestic terrorists and guys like the author of that blog will cheer about it.

What can you do? You are a subject, if you think you are not, try not paying your taxes. As a member of society, you are bound by their rules, thats the deal. 

The only way out is to not be a part of their society.

No this does not mean go live in the woods off grid, no this does not mean move to the Congo region. 

Society is a fiction, meaning it only exists in our minds. This concept seems strange to you because you think you can see society everywhere around you. Those are just men and women, cars and buildings. Society is the term we give for all of us collectively acting together for common goals.

There is no "state" of anything. Its made up, by us, to describe an area of land we hold power over. 

The old ways of thinking are over folks, you have to get on a higher level of critical thinking. Cast aside those beliefs, and hit the books, keep an open mind by not believing ANYTHING. Its ok to just have an idea, or a theory, there is no reason to hold a belief if at all possible.

This is not an easy path friends, its long hours of research and testing theories in discussion. You can not talk of most of your new knowledge, because most folks are to busy "living the dream" to have any interesting in learning something they are not forced to do (unless its a hobby). 

The workings of our government are easy to see for me because i see the true nature of how societies begin and work. I fear not the government because i know who i am, what my relationship is to them and my creator (be it God or Nature). The information to help one learn is there, the only problem is the will to learn and the ability to learn (beliefs play a part here).

I have tons of books in my file section of my FB group, and plenty of minds for out of the box discussion as well.

Remember, the more you know, the more you realize that you know nothing.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

The two roles congress plays.

Hello again, back to talk to you about an important concept in the constitution you might not know about. The two roles congress plays.....

Most folks know that congress is the legislative body for the 50 states, over a limited and enumerated few items mentioned in the constitution.

What they don't know was that congress is ALSO the legislative body over any and all federal territories, over an UNlimited amount of items of which anything is in their power to do.!/articles/1/essays/57/enclave-clause

The constitution does not apply in these federal territories because the constitution is a contract between the STATES and federal government.

To help show you what the difference in governing between a state and a territory, i would invite you to read "why Alaska needs statehood", here is a couple of pictures of the article so you can understand it better.

With terms like "era of neglect", we can see how territories dont have the same standing, nor do the folks in federal territories.

This quote below from a court case goes into a question we all need to ask....

Since Congress legislates in the same forms, and in the same character, in virtue of powers of equal obligation, conferred in the same instrument, when exercising its exclusive powers of legislation as well as when exercising those which are limited, we must inquire whether there be anything in the nature of this exclusive legislation which necessarily confines the operation of the laws made in virtue of this power to the place with a view to which they are made.

The question is thus....

When congress makes a law, did they make it as the body for the union states or did they make it as the body for the territories?

As we can see from Alaska's time as a territory, the laws congress can pass can be many or none, over any topic it wishes, only civil rights (bill of rights) apply.

Every state already had a bill of rights in their constitution, and even today rights in my state do not transfer to your state, we can see that in right to carry laws from state to state.

The bill of rights are civil rights state citizens/federal citizens had while in federal areas only. They could be regulated and taken away at the governments wish.

Hence this court case......

"...the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment]."
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520

They were held not to be protected because they applied to federal areas only, only after the 14th did congress and the courts incorporate these "natural rights"(really civil rights) onto the states.

Now if congress acting and passing laws for the territories and subjects living in those territories, how do they apply to us?

1. We claim to be us citizens due to a couple of misinformed beliefs.
2. the 14th amendment switched us from state citizens to federal citizens, again to our misunderstandings of the law.
3. after the civil war all the states rewrote their constitutions, swearing allegiance to the federal government, thus making them basically franchises or political subdivisions.

Is destroying someones mailbox a federal offense?

Mailboxes are considered federal property, and federal law (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1705), makes it a crime to vandalize them (or to injure, deface or destroy any mail deposited in them).

You agree that you are a resident in federal territory by using the two letter state code and zip code.

There is so much going on underneath what you think you know, that it boggles the mind, simply because we were not taught how to think critically or rationally.