Monday, July 25, 2016

Intent

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

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

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

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


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


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

Intent

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





Let start showing our intent folks.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

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

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

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

http://adventuresintosovereignty.org/template-documents-age-of-majority-domicile-by-david-roach/


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


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

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


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

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

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewforum.php?f=49

also fogbow

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=5


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



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

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

Good luck friends.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Sources on the second amendment.

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

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)

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

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

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

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

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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

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

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

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

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

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


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

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

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Time to educate our self.

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

http://www.marcandangel.com/2010/11/15/12-dozen-places-to-self-educate-yourself-online/

https://alison.com/

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

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


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


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

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


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

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Dred Scott

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

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



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

STATUS

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

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


You are all like WTF is he talking about.

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

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

Most laws apply to "PERSONS"

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

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