An interesting case that discusses domicile and its effects. It is from 1837, so the information in the case pretty much invalidates the 14th amendment did it crew, as well as the BC/SSN sold us into slavery theorists.
POLYDORE V. PRINCE.
[1 Ware (402) 411.]
The general doctrine of foreign jurists seems to be,
that the state of the person, that is, his legal capacity
to do, or not to do, certain acts is to be determined
by the law of his domicil, so that if he has by that
law, the free administration of his goods, or the right
to maintain an action in a court of justice there, he
has the same capacity everywhere; and if that capacity
is denied to him by the law of his domicil, it is
denied everywhere; that the laws determining the civil
qualities of the person, called by the foreign jurists
personal statutes, follow the person wherever he goes,
as the shadow follows the body, and adhere to him like
the color of the skin which is impressed by the climate.
Personal statutes are those which relate primarily to the person, and determine the civil privileges and
disabilities, the legal capacity or incapacity of the
individual, and do not affect his goods, but as they are
accessory to the person. Such are those which relate
to birth, legitimacy, freedom, majority or minority,
capacity to enter into contracts, to make a will, to
be a party to an action in a court of justice, with
others of the like kind. Repertoire de Jurisprudence,
mot “Statut.” According to this principle, a person
who is a major or a minor, a slave or a freeman,
has, or has not a capacity to appear as a party to an
action in a court of justice, stare in judicio, in his
own country, has the same capacities and disabilities
wherever he may be.
The Code Napoleon has erected
what seems to be the prevailing doctrine among the
continental civilians into a positive law. “The laws
concerning the state or capacity of persons govern
Frenchmen, even when residing in a foreign country.”
Code Civile, art. 3. If this general principle is to
be received without qualification, it would seem to
decide the present case at once, for it is admitted that
in Guadaloupe where the libellant has his domicil,
he can maintain no action in a court of justice. But
though the principle is stated in these broad and
general terms, yet when it is brought to a practical
application in its various modifications, in the actual
business of life, it is found to be qualified by so many
exceptions and limitations, that the principle itself is
stripped of a great part of its imposing authority.
No nation, it is believed, ever gave it effect in its
practical jurisprudence, in its whole extent.
Among
these personal statutes, for which this ubiquity is
claimed, are those which formerly over the whole of
Europe, and still over a 952 large part of it, divide the
people into different castes, as nobles and plebeians,
clergy and laity. The favored classes were entitled to
many personal privileges and immunities particularly
beneficial and honorable to themselves.
It cannot be supposed that these immunities would be allowed
in a country which admitted no such distinctions in
its domestic policy. If a bill in equity were filed
in one of our courts against an English nobleman
temporarily resident here, would he be allowed to put
in an answer upon his honor, and not under oath,
because he was entitled to that personal privilege in
the forum of his domicil? I apprehend not. In like
manner the disqualification and incapacities, by which
persons may be affected by the municipal institutions
of their own country, will not be recognized against
them in countries by whose laws no such
disqualifications are acknowledged.
In England a
person who has incurred the penalties of a premunire,
or has suffered the process of outlawry against him,
can maintain no action for the recovery of a debt,
or the redress of a personal wrong. But would it
be contended that because he could not maintain an
action in the forum of his domicil he could have no
remedy on a contract entered into, or a tort done
to him within our jurisdiction? The reasons upon
which an action is denied him in the forum of his
domicil are peculiar to that country, and have no
application within another jurisdiction. The incapacity
is created for causes that relate entirely to the domestic
and internal polity of that country. As soon as he
has passed beyond its territorial limits, the reason of
his incapacity ceases to operate, and in justice the
incapacity should cease also.
It follows that the peculiar personal status, as to his
capacities or incapacities, which an individual derives
from the law of his domicil, and which are imparted
only by that law, is suspended when he gets beyond
the sphere in which that law is in force. And when
he passes into another jurisdiction his personal status
becomes immediately affected by a new law, and he
has those personal capacities only which the local law
allows.
The civil capacities and incapacities with which
he is affected by the law of his domicil, cannot avail
either for his benefit or to his prejudice, any further
than as they are coincident with those recognized by
the local law, or as that community may, on principles
of national comity, choose to adopt the foreign law.
Though the civilians, as has been observed, generally,
hold that the law of the domicil should govern as to
the personal status, it is by no means true that they are
universally agreed. Voet, one of the most eminent, of
whom it has been said that by his clearness and logic
he merits the title of the geometer of jurisprudence
(Merl. Quest de Droit Confession, § 2, note 1), after
stating that such is the opinion of the majority,
“plurium opinio,” gives his own opinion in decisive
terms, that personal statutes, as well as those relating
to things, are limited in their operation to the country
by which they are established; and he supports his
opinion by the authority of the Roman law, as well as
by that plain and obvious axiom of the jus gentium,
that the legislative power of every government is
confined to its own territorial limits. Ad Pand. lib. 1,
tit. 4, pt. 2, notes 5, 7, 8. Gail, who has been styled
the Papinian of Germany, maintains the same opinion
in terms equally positive. Pract. Obs. lib. 8, Obs. 122,
note 11
“The entire change
of the legal character of individuals, produced by a
change of local situation, is far from being a novelty
in the law. A residence in a new country introduces
a change of legal condition, which imposes rights and
obligations totally inconsistent with the former rights
and obligations of the same persons. Persons bound
by particular contracts which restrain their liberty,
debtors, apprentices, and others, lose their character
and condition for the time, when they reside in another
country, and are entitled as persons totally free, though
they return to their original servitude and obligations
upon coming back to the country they 955 had quitted.”
You can read the whole case in my groups files section https://www.facebook.com/groups/2109106235982251/
Monday, October 9, 2017
Saturday, October 7, 2017
Public declaration for claim on vehicle.
Now comes Randall Flagg, a living man, demanding that any person or entity that has a claim/ security interest and/or legal title to my automobile (make/model/vin) make themselves known or forfeit their claim forever. Also be it known that any property related or attached to my private property, in the form of any ownership documents must be returned to me. If found to be in possession of my private property after this date, the fee associated for unlawfull being in possession of my private property will be 10,000. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, this is your notice. If someone uses my ownership documents and/or legal title to gain jurisdiction over my automobile, or to convert my automobile into a motor vehicle, the liability for those actions are 25,000.
Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
7 Deadly beliefs
I have cut back my online debate time because as expected, the information is not getting thru the belief structure the gubermint has beaten into our head. Further time spent discussing these 7 deadly beliefs will not be forth coming from me friends.
1. Secured party creditor.
Who came up with this crap theory, most likely big daddy government. First off, you are a subject, you always have been. The government, your master, is able to make whatever it wants as currency. As a member of society, you gave your right to decide what payment is mandatory to the collective "we the people". This theory does not even address domicile, much less discuss it in any depth for a successful change of status. These folks also seem to get into the most trouble with their TDA's, fee schedule's, lien's and the such. What an impressive way to not only get the people who want to think, to not only identify themselves with these bogus paper work pushing, but even to commit crimes. Ingenious!
Follow this line of thinking, if thinking is something you dont normally do.
2. State national
Another rampant belief that is just bait for the non thinking. A magical society/government where men were free to do what they wanted and owed no obligations. These folks think that the form of government has something to do with them being free. totally ignoring the obligations placed upon them by society before they ever even picked a form of government. Claiming allegiance to a man made fiction like a "state" is no different then claiming allegiance to the feds.
3. Tda's, hidden accounts, redemption,etc
These represent the financial aspect part of the freedom movement, and some of the least thinking among us. They somehow think the government ( 20 trillion in debt) has billions in every persons "secret" account. That they can access this money and use it and somehow not set off hyper inflation. Usually part of the secured party creditor crew, spending time in these groups shows you that no one in them has a clue. These people are not interested in becoming free, but on getting a free ride.
4. The common law
Misconceptions abound in the freedom movement about common law, mainly by folks who have never read a legal book on the subject, but instead have read patritard white papers on it instead. The common law is only common to the subjects of the society in which said common law is administered. Free men govern them self under natural law, not common law. I would suggest picking up some books on these subjects, i have many in my FB group files section.... https://www.facebook.com/groups/2109106235982251/
5. Defacto/ Dejure
How about defucktard? What does it matter if the government is either one, free men are not a part of either one. Another time robber, dismiss this shit out of hand.
6. The constitution/ founders
Another supreme mind jack, this document is what allows subjection to the federal government with no recourse. Most people have the totally wrong ideal about this document and our founders intent. I have many resources on this area and time in history for you to reevaluate your belief on the subject.
7. That you will ever become free without understanding your beliefs.
I keep telling people how to free themselves, but it seems like they already know it all, but yet are still not free. People struggle with admitting they might be wrong about something they always thought they knew. Oh well, i can only inform, its up to each and every one of us to decide how much we really want to know.
1. Secured party creditor.
Who came up with this crap theory, most likely big daddy government. First off, you are a subject, you always have been. The government, your master, is able to make whatever it wants as currency. As a member of society, you gave your right to decide what payment is mandatory to the collective "we the people". This theory does not even address domicile, much less discuss it in any depth for a successful change of status. These folks also seem to get into the most trouble with their TDA's, fee schedule's, lien's and the such. What an impressive way to not only get the people who want to think, to not only identify themselves with these bogus paper work pushing, but even to commit crimes. Ingenious!
Follow this line of thinking, if thinking is something you dont normally do.
2. State national
Another rampant belief that is just bait for the non thinking. A magical society/government where men were free to do what they wanted and owed no obligations. These folks think that the form of government has something to do with them being free. totally ignoring the obligations placed upon them by society before they ever even picked a form of government. Claiming allegiance to a man made fiction like a "state" is no different then claiming allegiance to the feds.
3. Tda's, hidden accounts, redemption,etc
These represent the financial aspect part of the freedom movement, and some of the least thinking among us. They somehow think the government ( 20 trillion in debt) has billions in every persons "secret" account. That they can access this money and use it and somehow not set off hyper inflation. Usually part of the secured party creditor crew, spending time in these groups shows you that no one in them has a clue. These people are not interested in becoming free, but on getting a free ride.
4. The common law
Misconceptions abound in the freedom movement about common law, mainly by folks who have never read a legal book on the subject, but instead have read patritard white papers on it instead. The common law is only common to the subjects of the society in which said common law is administered. Free men govern them self under natural law, not common law. I would suggest picking up some books on these subjects, i have many in my FB group files section.... https://www.facebook.com/groups/2109106235982251/
5. Defacto/ Dejure
How about defucktard? What does it matter if the government is either one, free men are not a part of either one. Another time robber, dismiss this shit out of hand.
6. The constitution/ founders
Another supreme mind jack, this document is what allows subjection to the federal government with no recourse. Most people have the totally wrong ideal about this document and our founders intent. I have many resources on this area and time in history for you to reevaluate your belief on the subject.
7. That you will ever become free without understanding your beliefs.
I keep telling people how to free themselves, but it seems like they already know it all, but yet are still not free. People struggle with admitting they might be wrong about something they always thought they knew. Oh well, i can only inform, its up to each and every one of us to decide how much we really want to know.
Friday, September 1, 2017
Understanding society, aka why your republic dont mean shit.
You know i hear alot about this magical republic, this union so just and free. The only thing is that NONE of the history, laws or accounts from back then seem to match up this "dream" with reality.
In order to understand why, we must first understand society.
Social contracts typically offer some form of mutual benefit and impose some mutual obligations or constraints. Citizens who are party to these agreements, for example, explicitly or implicitly accept obligations or responsibilities (paying taxes, voting, obeying rules and regulations, etc.) in return for benefits and protection by a state (e.g., maintaining order, fostering citizen well-being, and providing for education and health services). Social contracts also reflect a much wider principle, namely that human relationships should be regulated by agreements. Viewed as part of the Enlightenment project, much early social contract thinking evolved in a period of the expansion of the state, and the expansion of individual civil, political, and social rights (Mills 1997).
Given the roots of social contract theory, it is not surprising that many argue that existing contracts are not neutral, and have not been applied equally to all members of society (Nussbaum 2006). Social contracts have prioritized power of some over others and have served as exclusionary tools for domination (Pateman and Mills 2007). Patriarchal, racial, and imperial structures have shaped the modern world and have left a legacy in modern society (Pateman and Mills 2007). As a model of governance, the social contract has been continually contested and challenged, particularly in relation to the way that the theories of social contracts have in reality codified and legitimated men’s domination of women (Pateman 1988) or the subordination of one race to another (Mills 1997)
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art12/
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.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/8-ways-soldiers-recruited-medieval-england.html/2
And here again, we come back to that old, benefits for obligations thing.......
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)
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art12/
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.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/8-ways-soldiers-recruited-medieval-england.html/2
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).
Groups
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).
Classes
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).
Stratification
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
http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm/ref/collection/p16062coll9/id/264934
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....
http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1716&context=tlr
Here is a very extensive list of North Carolina's early laws.
http://ncgovdocs.org/guides/sessionlawslist.htm
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....
https://www.facebook.com/truTVAdamRuinsEverything/videos/10155262613376943/?hc_ref=ARTfVO7Ma_1JY_ukkfOh2K97BhTCz1ayzBjspWomfinaQ3aJmbCJK0iQnLdUgFePcsU&pnref=story
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 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2012/08/neil-degrasse-tyson-the-3-phases-of-scientific-truth/
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
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.
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
http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm/ref/collection/p16062coll9/id/264934
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....
http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1716&context=tlr
Here is a very extensive list of North Carolina's early laws.
http://ncgovdocs.org/guides/sessionlawslist.htm
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....
https://www.facebook.com/truTVAdamRuinsEverything/videos/10155262613376943/?hc_ref=ARTfVO7Ma_1JY_ukkfOh2K97BhTCz1ayzBjspWomfinaQ3aJmbCJK0iQnLdUgFePcsU&pnref=story
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 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2012/08/neil-degrasse-tyson-the-3-phases-of-scientific-truth/
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
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.
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.
Continued…
“…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).
Continued…
“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...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/02/the-state-doesnt-own-your-kids-and-neither-do-you.html
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.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19/264
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).
https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/radDocs/tipvandl.htm
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.
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.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19/264
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).
https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/radDocs/tipvandl.htm
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)