True sovereignty discussion

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
thecoloredsky
thecoloredsky's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 1331
Posts: 175
True sovereignty discussion
I think I might have found a solution, or at least something worthy of discussion regarding sovereignty. Usually these people are referred to as "sovereign citizens" (although that is an oxymoron) or "freemen."
 
Below I will post a link to a youtube video of a man in Canada who explains how to become "free" or "sovereign." He explains that everyone is inherently free but we choose to give those rights away. For instance, the Declaration of Independence states (bolded my emphasis):
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
 
Notice it doesn't say citizens? It says "men." These inherent unalienable rights are given to us by our Creator and cannot be taken away. The government is created by men to PROTECT those rights. So the hierarchy of life looks like this:
 
GOD created...
MAN who created...
GOVERNMENT which creates...
LAWS
 
Man is above government because we created it to protect our rights. If someone came and forcefully took your land, the government is there to protect your rights. This isn't a privilege, this is how the founders setup the government. Now for the government to function and exist, they are given the ability to raise revenue through leasing of land to corporations, tariffs, excise taxes, issuing debt on the credit of the American people and things like that. In no way shape or form can the government legally take your income tax (the fruits of your labor) without your consent. Let me say that again, the labor you produce and the byproduct you receive is the fruits of your labor and is protected by your inherent rights as a man. Unless you decide to give a portion of it away to government, it is not legal for them to take it. We've been taught and doing everything wrong for a long time it seems.
 
Most people will say, "Yeah but how will roads be built and schools created?" This is a valid question, but they are going under the assumption that government must provide these things in the first place. This is not the case! Government can and should create roads so commerce can exist, but that money will come from the aforementioned avenues of revenue generation, not income tax or property tax! Why did income tax not exist before 1913? Has something changed?
 
If you are still following me you are probably asking, "Well why must I pay income tax then?" This is where you will need to have a basic understanding of law. I am under the impression that none of this is taught for a reason. It's sort of like generational indoctrination. I always wondered what was going through the minds of the people who were the first to pay income taxes. But that aside, let's look at a real world scenario...
 
Scenario: A man gets pulled over by a police officer for speeding on his way to work at his private company.
 
Example of how we act nowadays: Cop asks for drivers license, registration, and insurance. We provide it to them. Cop says you were speeding but you cannot prove otherwise. You get a ticket and pay a fine. You could also go to court and plead your case to reverse the fine.
 
Example of how a sovereign or freeman acts: Cop pulls you over and asks for drivers license, registration, and insurance. You say that you don't have those items or that you have them but aren't working as an agent of the government at this time. You say that you are simply traveling to your job. Cop is confused of course and asks for your name. You respond that your given name by birth is XXX XXX and you are in your inherent jurisdiction. Depending on how the cop wants to act, he can try and look up your name in the system and try and ticket you. He could ask you to step outside the vehicle. But whatever that happens past this point, the person who was pulled over will explain that anything the police is doing past this point is against his will and unless there is a valid reason for pulling him over, the police can be held liable in common law court.
 
In example one the person provided their license. By having this license means that you are acting through a title in some government capacity. At that point you waived your inherent rights to travel by receiving a privilege to DRIVE. That person waived their inherent rights! At that point the person is operating under a statutory jurisdiction which means that person will have to abide by the government rules (speed limits, stop signs, etc).
 
In example two, the person has not consented to any government capacity and they are operating in their inherent jurisdiction. This jurisdiction means that the police officer should be protecting you, as long as you did nothing wrong or there are no injured parties. Because remember, government was created by man to protect their inalienable rights! The officer wouldn't be acting in good faith if he threw you in jail! The speed limit sign does not apply to this person because he has not acted through a title of a drivers license. Remember when police used to be called "peace officers?" Remember when police cars used to have "to serve and protect" written on the side of their cars?
 
Two things to take from this: Statutory and Inherent jurisdictions. Statutory jurisdictions is anytime you give up your rights for government privileges. Anytime you get a drivers license, plumbing license, submit the form for tax withholdings at work, use your social security number, etc you are accepting privileges. If you didn't accept these things, you maintain your "sovereignty" and operate with FULL LIABILITY. Let's say that the speeder in example one actually hit someone. That person has insurance, right? The insurance is held liable for the acts of the person and will fix any damages. In example two, if the person got in an accident, they are held FULL LIABILITY for any damages. But since it was a speeding ticket, the sovereign person claims there was no damages to any party and was acting in their inherent jurisdiction so there can be no penalties. If the sovereign person does get in an accident, he or she will be sued for damages in common law court. Every piece of equity he has is taken into consideration when recouping damages. That is full liability.
 
I am by no means a lawyer but this is what I understand from what I've researched: Statutory court is the jurisdiction of when matters are settled regarding anything government related. Whether its a company selling products unfairly to the government, speeding tickets, tax evasion, etc. Anything that involves government as a party and utilizing some identification like a license or ID.
 
Common law (or inherent law) is what everyone is granted when they are born. You are a man with unalienable rights. You can travel, eat, sleep, engage in commerce, provide a means to live, work, enjoy the fruits of your labor, own a piece of land as private property, etc. Government cannot take these away unless you allow them. If two people cannot come to an agreement by themselves, they can go to a common law court where the government has provided a judge and jury. The jury should be compromised of "peers," meaning non-government workers.  This is why man created government; to protect their rights. This way a band of marauding rebels can't kick you off your land if you are incapable of protecting it yourself. 
 
If you are STILL following me, check out the video below. I've slowly been researching this and its taking me a while, but I believe I understand what is going on. We never lost our freedom, we just forgot how to. And also realize that if enough people "opted" out, government will be forced to shrink. I will be adding some more posts to this thread as I gather more information. I'd like your input as well!
 
 
 
Edited by admin on 11/08/2014 - 06:27
Nana
Nana's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2012
Hat Tips: 13224
Posts: 4456
Great Thread!

Great Thread!

I have listened to Dean before and he is 100% correct in what he says.

BTW- nice blog you have there too!

silver66
silver66's picture
Online
Joined: 10/08/2012
Hat Tips: 12398
Posts: 2098
Free Man

Book marked and will view later. Nice post

Silver66

__________________

Silver66
Money is minted, currency is printed

Nana
Nana's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2012
Hat Tips: 13224
Posts: 4456
Different Issues

Dean skips straight to the heart of the matter of sovereignty but bypasses how we got to this point. I think it is important to know how we got here and why. And there are a few others who have some very good vids on sovereignty too.

I believe the hardest thing for most to understand is that you are already free, you have been brainwash into believing that you must obey other men, governments and their alphabet agencies. The simplest answer is to just opt out of their system and not play their game. Remember it's their game and they make their own rules.

thecoloredsky
thecoloredsky's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 1331
Posts: 175
Thanks Nana.  I made it

Thanks Nana.  I made it halfway through that video and its pretty darn good (I will finish the rest later). One thing that I'm trying to locate is the scanned copy or some proven documentation of the discussion between Mandell House and Woodrow Wilson as follows:

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.  By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. 

Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent,   forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call  “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

Unfortunately I can't locate where this original text came from. Maybe the John Birch Society might know? Anyways, good stuff.
 

thecoloredsky
thecoloredsky's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 1331
Posts: 175
It appears that there's two

It appears that there's two camps on how to exercise sovereignty. One side there's http://www.sedm.org who  has detailed instructions on getting rid of every ID and becoming a non-citizen national. On the other side there is Dean Clifford who tends to keep those licenses (or titles) but claims he isn't operating through them.

I suppose SEDM has taken any question of doubt from the person which can be a good thing I suppose. If anyone hasn't read SEDM yet its huge. A literal repository of legal information specifically to become free. Amazing stuff although it has a hint of religious themes and comparisons.

Aside from that, I stumbled upon a case where people were paying their employees gold and silver coins. Since the coins have such low face value they never reported this to the IRS. After 161 counts of tax evasion, the defendants all walked out free and innocent.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/366287.shtml

Las Vegas Review and Journal article: http://www.lvrj.com/news/9893062.html

And on a somewhat related note, this page is pretty interesting take on how the IRS is irrelevant.
http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MeadorDan/Articles/irsbegin.htm

thecoloredsky
thecoloredsky's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 1331
Posts: 175
So I figured I would report

So I figured I would report back some of my conversational findings over the past few weeks. I've spoken to a fresh out-of-school lawyer and a friend who is a tax accountant.

The lawyer - Admittedly he is "in training" or however you want to explain the process of being an apprentice at a law firm. I first asked him if his law firm practices common law or statutory law. He didn't quite know the easy answer but he basically said both. I started off asking him about drivers licenses and hypothetically would it be ok if I never gotten one. I could tell he thought I threw him a softball and tried to hit it out of the park. "Well you need a license to drive," he said. Ok, well what if I don't want one. "You can't drive then." I asked him if its ok to drive to his house so we can play cards, something that doesn't involve commerce or anything of that nature. Simply traveling to his house. He stopped for a second, then reiterated his original thought. I told him I was under the impression that we are given rights as soon as we're born and that it includes the ability to travel. He agreed, but then said that's not the law. We began a circular discussion and I didn't press him too much. I explained that I think by signing the drivers license that I am giving up my natural rights to travel for the privilege of driving. I also mentioned the fact that its ok for bicycles to travel on the road yet they do not have a drivers license. Usually people rely on explaining that your tax dollars pay for roads (along with registration, plate, and other fees) so considering bicycles don't need to adhere by that shows bias in the system. I could tell that he never questioned anything before and I left it at that. Maybe this will spark something in his head to ponder on, but I doubt it.

Tax guy - He knows that I am anti-income taxes and I occasionally joke that if I had it my way he would be out of a job. We joke around and its all fun and games. But he thinks I am absolutely nuts when it comes to challenging government. We spoke for 30 minutes straight over every hypothetical you can think of.  I asked him why there wasn't income tax for the majority of America's history. No real answer, only that things change over time. I asked him why social security is an option at birth and he said that you wouldn't be able to succeed in life and get a job. Ok, fair enough that isn't the best argument but at least its something. We went on and on and finally he agreed that we're slaves to the system. But when I asked him that we should do something about it he said it would be futile. He believes that we are all born into a system and we have no choices. I asked him how can we call ourselves free then but again, he couldn't answer that. I was stunned that he acknowledged that we were slaves but couldn't care to do anything about it. It reminded me of the American Revolution when 33% supported the revolution, 33% supported the King, and 33% wanted no part in it. He sounds like the latter.

I'm not presently living my life like a sovereign but I am learning. By talking with friends and family I am bringing up talking points that no one has ever engaged in before. I think its important that we speak to our friends and family and bring up these thought provoking questions. At least plant the seed in people's minds that perhaps our way of life is against our natural rights.

thecoloredsky
thecoloredsky's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 1331
Posts: 175
Post bonds as insurance

So one of the "terms" of giving up your right to travel by getting a "drivers" license is the requirement to buy insurance. This got me thinking since my insurance just came due the other day.

You know how people charged for felonies are brought into court and given a bond to pay so they can be released? As far as I know, if that person pays the bond and is also deemed not guilty at end of the trial, that person can get back their bond they paid. So a light bulb went off. Why can't someone purchase a bond held by the courts for their requirement to drive? And when the person decides they don't want to drive anymore, they can get back the money. That bond would also be obviously held in case of accidents and injuries.

I think its a crime to be ordered to pay insurance (very high rates for someone who's never been in an accident, I might add) and not receive ANY benefits. The insurance companies would hate this, but I would rather save up money and drop it into a bond thats held at the courthouse. Anyone doing this would be insured and not needlessly wasting money. Of course, you could also let insurance companies compete against the system but at least people would have an option. I am under the impression that the system is not designed for our benefit (again).

thecoloredsky
thecoloredsky's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 1331
Posts: 175
Amish exemptions Amish do

Amish exemptions

Amish do receive an exemption from Social Security, signing away the right to receive Social Security benefits in the process.  Amish were granted exemption from participation in Social Security in recognition of the fact that Amish communities care for their old and infirm.  Amish also consider programs such as Social Security to be insurance programs, which contradict Amish beliefs against participating in commercial insurance.

Though they are generally exempted from Social Security, in some cases Amish may in fact be required to pay Social Security taxes.  This may happen when working for a business that is of mixed Amish and non-Amish ownership.  Amish business owners are also required to pay Social Security taxes when employing non-Amish workers, or Amish youth that have not yet been baptized in the church.

In some states Amish are also exempt from participating in Worker’s Compensation insurance programs as well.  Amish employers and the community typically help to take care of the injured and sick as well as their families.

http://amishamerica.com/do-amish-pay-taxes

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

Thought that was interesting... although apparently they pay income taxes. I wonder how that came to be?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Topic locked
Syndicate contentComments for "True sovereignty discussion"