Natural Solutions & World News

Tips to Holistic Health & World News

Leave a comment

Unalienable Rights vs. Inalienable Rights

The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. Key word CONSENT!

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that ‘THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IN HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that ‘all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly, is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . . BUTCHERS’ UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

“Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as “the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;” and therefore it has been justly said, that “absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security–the right of personal liberty–and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Potter’s Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429.

From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons ONLY, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another? VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

(“[T]he Due Process Clause protects [the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence] rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations. SANDIN v. CONNER, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)

In the second article of the Declaration of Rights, which was made part of the late Constitution of Pennsylvania, it is declared: ‘That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding; and that no man ought or of right can be compelled, to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent; nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be, vested in, or assumed, by any power whatever, that shall, in any case, interfere with, or in any manner control, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.’ (Dec. of Rights, Art. 2.). . . (The Judge then read the 1st. 8th. and 11th articles of the Declaration of Rights; and the 9th. and 46th sections of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. See 1 Vol. Dall. Edit. Penn. Laws p. 55. 6. 60. in the Appendix.) From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact, and, by the late Constitution of Pennsylvania, was made a fundamental law. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

I had thought it self-evident that all men were endowed by their Creator with liberty as one of the cardinal unalienable rights. It is that basic freedom which the Due Process Clause protects, rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations. . . It demeans the holding in Morrissey – more importantly it demeans the concept of liberty itself – to ascribe to that holding nothing more than a protection of an interest that the State has created through its own prison regulations. For if the inmate’s protected liberty interests are no greater than the State chooses to allow, he is really little more than the slave described in the 19th century cases. I think it clear that even the inmate retains an unalienable interest in liberty – at the very minimum the right to be treated with dignity – which the Constitution may never ignore. MEACHUM v. FANO, 427 U.S. 215 (1976)

All commissions (regardless of their form, or by whom issued) contain, impliedly, the constitutional reservation, that the people at any time have the right, through their representatives, to alter, reform, or abolish the office, as they may alter, if they choose, the whole form of government. In our magna charta it is proclaimed (2d section of the Bill of Rights, under the 9th Article of the Constitution of Pennsylvania), that ‘all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of these ends they have at all times an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their government, in such manner as they may think proper.’ It has been well said, by one of the ablest judges of the age, that ‘a constitution is not to receive a technical construction, like a common law instrument or a statute. It is to be interpreted so as to carry out the great principles of the government, not to defeat them.’ Per Gibson, C. J., in Commonwealth v. Clark, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.), 133. BUTLER v. COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA, 51 U.S. 402 (1850) I think we need reform! Do you?

The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. ‘To secure these rights,’ says the Declaration of Independence, ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these ‘unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.’ Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States to punish for a conspiracy to falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself. U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“. . . The question presented is not whether the United States has the power to condemn and appropriate this property of the Monongahela Company, for that is conceded, but how much it must pay as compensation therefor. Obviously, this question, as all others which run along the line of the extent of the protection the individual has under the Constitution against the demands of the government, is of importance; for in any society the fullness and sufficiency of the securities which surround the individual in the use and enjoyment of his property constitute one of the most certain tests of the character and value of the government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)

‘By the common law, the king as parens patriae owned the soil under all the waters of all navigable rivers or arms of the sea where the tide regularly ebbs and flows, including the shore or bank to high- water mark. … He held these rights, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of his subjects at large, who were entitled to the free use of the sea, and all tide waters, for the purposes of navigation, fishing, etc., subject to such regulations and restrictions as the crown or the Parliament might prescribe. By Magna Charta, and many subsequent statutes, the powers of the king are limited, and he cannot now deprive his subjects of these rights by granting the public navigable waters to individuals. But there can be no doubt of the right of Parliament in England, or the Legislature of this state, to make such grants, when they do not interfere with the vested rights of particular individuals. The right to navigate the public waters of the state and to fish therein, and the right to use the public highways, are all public rights belonging to the people at large. They are not the private unalienable rights of each individual. Hence the Legislature as the representatives of the public may restrict and regulate the exercise of those rights in such manner as may be deemed most beneficial to the public at large: Provided they do not interfere with vested rights which have been granted to individuals.’ APPLEBY v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 271 U.S. 364 (1926) You don’t need a license to drive or to use a boat!  That’s called racketeering to say that I have to have a license to drive, I have the RIGHT TO TRAVEL! So do you!

I Elliot’s Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876) 319 et seq. In ratifying the Constitution the following

declarations were made: New Hampshire, p. 326, ‘XI. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.’ Virginia, p. 327, ‘… no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience, and of the press, cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States.’ New York, p. 328, ‘That the freedom of the press ought not to be violated or restrained.’ After the submission of the amendments, Rhode Island ratified and declared, pp. 334, 335, ‘IV. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force and violence; and therefore all men have a natural, equal, and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others. … XVI. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments. That freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

As to the objections made on the other side to our interpretation of the compact, that it impugns the right to the pursuit of happiness, which is inherent in every society of men, and is incompatible with these unalienable rights of sovereignty and of self-government, which every independent State must possess, the answer is obvious: that no people has a right to pursue its own happiness to the injury of others, for whose protection solemn compacts, like the present, have been made. [Basically, no victim, no crime] It is a trite maxim, that man gives up a part of his natural liberty when he enters into civil society, as the price of the blessings of that state: and it may be said, with truth, this liberty is well exchanged for the advantages which flow from law and justice. GREEN v. BIDDLE, 21 U.S. 1 (1821)

This court said, in the case of The Bank of Columbia v. Okely (4 Wheat. 235), in speaking of a summary proceeding given by the charter of that bank for the collection of its debts: ‘It is the remedy, and not the right, and as such we have no doubt of its being subject to the will of Congress. The forms of administering justice, and the duties and powers of courts as incident to the exercise of a branch of sovereign power, must ever be subject to legislative will, and the power over them is unalienable, so as to bind subsequent legislatures.’ And in Young v. The Bank of Alexandria (4 Cranch, 397), Mr. Chief Justice Marshall says: ‘There is a difference between those rights on which the validity of the transactions of the corporation depends, which must adhere to those transactions everywhere, and those peculiar remedies which may be bestowed on it. The first are of general obligation; the last, from their nature, can only be exercised in those courts which the power making the grant can regulate.’ See also The Commonwealth v. The Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. et al., 43 Pa. St. 227; State of Maryland v. Northern Central Railroad Co., 18 Md. 193; Colby v. Dennis, 36 Me. 1; Gowan v. Penobscot Railroad Co., 44 id. 140. U.S. v. UNION PAC. R. CO., 98 U.S. 569 (1878)

It is significant that the guarantee of freedom of speech and press falls between the religious guarantees and the guarantee of the right to petition for redress of grievances in the text of the First Amendment, the principles of which are carried to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. It partakes of the nature of both, for it is as much a guarantee to individuals of their personal right to make their thoughts public and put them before the community, see Holt, Of the Liberty of the Press, in Nelson, Freedom of the Press from Hamilton to the Warren Court 18-19, as it is a social necessity required for the “maintenance of our political system and an open society.” Time, Inc. v. Hill, supra, at 389. It is because of the personal nature

of this right that we have rejected all manner of prior restraint on publication, Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, despite strong arguments that if the material was unprotected the time of suppression was immaterial. Pound, Equitable Relief Against Defamation and Injuries to Personality, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 640. The dissemination of the individual’s opinions on matters of public interest is for us, in the historic words of the Declaration of Independence, an unalienable right that “governments are instituted among men to secure.” History shows us that the Founders were not always convinced that unlimited discussion of public issues would be “for the benefit of all of us”13 but that they firmly adhered to the proposition that the “true liberty of the press” permitted “every man to publish his opinion.” Respublica v. Oswald, 1 Dall. 319, 325 (Pa.). CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. v. BUTTS, 388 U.S. 130 (1967)

While the “meaning and scope of the First Amendment” must be read “in light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress,” Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at 14-15, this Court has also recognized that “this Nation’s history has not been one of entirely sanitized separation between Church and State.” Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, at 760. “The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself.” Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 213 (1963).5 The Court properly has noted “an unbroken history of official acknowledgment . . . of the role of religion in American life.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S., at 674, and has recognized that these references to “our religious heritage” are constitutionally acceptable. Id., at 677. EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

When the First Congress was debating the Bill of Rights, it was contended that there was no need separately to assert the right of assembly because it was subsumed in freedom of speech. Mr. Sedgwick of Massachusetts argued that inclusion of “assembly” among the enumerated rights would tend to make the Congress “appear trifling in the eyes of their constituents. . . .” If people freely converse together, they must assemble for that purpose; it is a self-evident, unalienable right which the people possess; it is certainly a thing that never would be called in question . . . .” 1 Annals of Cong. 731 (1789). Since the right existed independent of any written guarantee, Sedgwick went on to argue that if it were the drafting committee’s purpose to protect all inherent rights of the people by listing them, “they might have gone into a very lengthy enumeration of rights,” but this was unnecessary, he said, “in a Government where none of them were intended to be infringed.” Id., at 732. Mr. Page of Virginia responded, however, that at times “such rights have been opposed,” and that “people have . . . been prevented from assembling together on their lawful occasions”: “[T]herefore it is well to guard against such stretches of authority, by inserting the privilege in the declaration of rights. If the people could be deprived of the power of assembling under any pretext whatsoever, they might be deprived of every other privilege contained in the clause.” Ibid. The motion to strike “assembly” was defeated. Id., at 733. RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. VIRGINIA, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)

“Gentlemen, I have insisted, at great length, upon the origin of governments, and detailed the authorities which you have heard upon the subject, because I consider it to be not only an essential support, but the very foundation of the liberty of the press. If Mr. Burke be right in his principles of government, I admit that the press, in my sense of its freedom, ought not to be free, nor free in any sense at all; and that all addresses to the people upon the subjects of government, and all speculations of amendment, of what kind or nature soever, are illegal and criminal; since if the people have, with out possible re-call, delegated all their authorities, they have no jurisdiction to act, and therefore none to think or write upon such subjects; and it would be a libel to arraign government or any of its acts, before those who have no jurisdiction to correct them. But on the other hand . . . no legal argument can shake the freedom of the press in my sense of it, if I am supported in my doctrines concerning the great unalienable right of the people, to reform or to change their governments. It is because the liberty of the press resolves itself into this great issue, that it has been in every country the last liberty which subjects have been able to wrest from power. Other liberties are held under governments, but the liberty of opinion keeps governments themselves in due subjection to their duties.” 1 Speeches of Lord Erskine 524-525 (J. High ed. 1876). HERBERT v. LANDO, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)

The denial of human rights was etched into the American Colonies’ first attempts at establishing self-government. When the colonists determined to seek their independence from England, they drafted a unique document cataloging their grievances against the King and proclaiming as “self-evident” that “all men are created equal” and are endowed “with certain unalienable Rights,” including those to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The self-evident truths and the unalienable rights were intended, however, to apply only to white men. An earlier draft of the Declaration of Independence, submitted by Thomas Jefferson to the Continental Congress, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

The Declaration of Independence states the American creed: “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.” This ideal was not fully achieved with the adoption of our Constitution because of the hard and tragic reality of Negro slavery. The Constitution of the new Nation, while heralding liberty, in effect declared all men to be free and equal – except black men who were to be neither free nor equal. This inconsistency reflected a fundamental departure from the American creed, a departure which it took a tragic civil war to set right.  [Crazy right… ] With the adoption, however, of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, freedom and equality were guaranteed expressly to all regardless “of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”1 United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218. BELL v. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  As always I leave my links   <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Get informed. Do the research. Take control of your health! Do you know anyone who suffers from depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bi polar or grinds their teeth? You may have parasites….  Click the links below>>

1) Toxoplasmosis Parasite May Trigger Schizophrenia And Bipolar Disorders 

2)  Common Symptoms of Parasites in Humans 


Another Blog on signs~ Do I Have Intestinal Parasites? is currently under construction    9630671 watch the first video then connect with me to get you started TODAY!     3420941

A must see video:


Independence Day, The Greatest Deception by Our Government!


common law flag

This is the sovereign flag!

PLEASE SHARE! IF YOU DON’T KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! I put a lot of information here but please don’t get sidetracked with the links in the beginning of this blog. Get to the juicy info, come back later and click the links.

I jump right into it here, just keep reading, when you get further down you will have more comprehension.  We have all been deceived and mislead into operating and living in a way we do not comprehend through deception and it was done with our Social Security Bonds and Birth Certificate Bonds, that were sold to the World Banks in exchange for our life wages, property tax, income tax,  ect… our drivers license… (ALL CAPS NAME) referred to as your strawman. Words in court mean different things then what we know them to be.  The word person in court means corporation. So when you go to court, you consent to being a corporate entity that they can now do business with and charge you fee and fines and make you live according to their statues and codes. But if you do not consent, they can not do business with you.

The following in purple is a compilation of work by Judge Dale, retired, attorney/author Melvin Stamper, and AntiCorruption Society researchers. AntiCorruption Society additions have been inserted in boxed text.


A corporation is a fictional character or entity in law, created by the government, which makes that fictional character or entity the intellectual property of the government but you are never told that! Corporations can own any number of other corporations but can never own a flesh and blood human being!

[[[[As corporations only exist on paper, they are both defined and bound by the law of contracts – more words on paper. In other words, corporations cannot nod their heads, shake hands or utter any words of affirmation.]]]]

All laws created under this parent corporation will essentially become corporate laws and regulations to govern the parent corporation and all subordinate or sub-corporations owned by the parent.i These corporate laws and regulations are called statutes and their affect and control over human beings is deceptively obtained by consent through civil contracts.[1 ] Look up the word ‘person’ in any modern law dictionary and you will see that a person is regarded as a corporation and not a flesh and blood human being. These civil contracts were secured by and through several federal and state voluntary registration programs (social security, birth certificates)  designed to convert and enslave flesh and blood American citizens of the Republic into corporate property. These registration programs always involved government benefits as an inducement. However, nothing is for free and when the state and federal governments offer anything for free, you can bet that upon your acceptance there are ropes and chains about to be attached to your neck, hands and ankles!

Legally, these civil contracts lacked “mutuality,” meaning that all registrants must understand the true nature and intent of the contract and subsequently must knowingly accept or consent to the terms of those contracts. The government’s subversive tactics perverts “mutuality” and lawfully eliminates any and all contractual relationships, as historically established by the International Law of Contracts a/k/a Uniform Commercial Code. (The UCC)

 [ 1 ] The government by becoming a corporator, (See 28 USC §3002(15(A)(B)(C), 22 USCA 286(e)) lays down its sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter. (See: The Bank of the United States v. Planters Bank of Georgia, 5 L.Ed. (Wheat) 244; U.S. v. Butt, 309 U.S. 242).

Are we the United States of America or are we the United States of America Incorporated?

Did you know that our government is a BUSINESS? Can anyone force you to shop or do business with target? Can anyone force you to shop or do business with Walmart? No… right? So why then do you think they can force you to do business with the government? DO NOT CONSENT!

Case dismissed!! It’s not really that simple [[[case dismissed]]] you have to know how to handle it and what to say and do in court.  As long as you did not hurt anyone or damage their property. No victim, no crime.  (It should be as simple as case dismissed, but it is not.) You must know what you are doing and study a lot before you attempt this in court) because the judge WILL test you to see how much you know.  You can learn more from Winston Strout, Solutions in Commerce or you can learn a lot from this facebook group tactical [sovereignty] In that group you can learn A LOT just by reading the posts and also go to [files] and review the files. This group is not for beginners. You will not understand the conversations or the posts if you have not done any studying at all but this blog your reading now is a good start to open the doors and to have you searching for more….

The next time you are filling out a form that asks you to check a box, don’t be so quick to confess that you are a US citizen. (And don’t be so willing to waive your right to privacy, fill out confessions, take perjury oaths, or greed after whatever worldly recognition that the form offers). Without a confession, you might be able to retain basic human rights, such as the right to own property and the right to earn wages.


Article IV of the Articles of Confederation extended privileges of citizenship to mere inhabitants, with this phrase:

“… the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states

The Articles of Confederation uses phrases in which nouns are not capitalized proper nouns, and never use the preposition “of,” examples:
  • states in this union
  • free inhabitants
  • free citizens

The US Constitution omits references to free, and uses phrases with proper capitalized nouns, and often use the preposition “of“:

  • Citizen of the United States
  • Inhabitant of that State
  • Resident within the United States
  • People of the several States

The 14th Amendment created a type of federal “citizenship” which is analogous to ownership.

In your U.S. Constitution prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the word “Citizen” was ALWAYS capitalized: Article 1, Section 2 (twice); Article 1, Section 3; Article 2, Section 1; Article 3, Section 2 (five times); Article 4 Section 2 (twice); and the 11th Amendment (twice). But, it is NEVER capitalized in the five occurrences within the 14th Amendment. Congress did not forget the proper use of English. One refers to the proper title of the government’s Master. The other is a word for government property. Which one are you?

The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship. Originally intended for the 4 million freed slaves who had no means of support, it allowed for federal ownership of those who needed federal entitlements in order to survive. As previously explained, it “is an absurdity” to think that your Constitution would ever be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals. Under your Constitution, welfare for individuals is not possible without ownership (because welfare is the responsibility of owners, church and family). This is Biblical.

Equal protection under the law ?

Lawyers will tell you that the 14th Amendment was the great equalizer. They will tell you that your rights to equal protection under the law come from the 14th Amendment. They will then ask you why you would question such strong protections?

Compare the following two quotes that acknowledge equal protection under the law: The 14th Amendment, Section 1: “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … ” The 5th Amendment “… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”

The US Supreme Court in 1878 case of Davidson v. New Orleans stated that your Constitution is not redundant. They mean different things.

Recommended reading on the topic of the 14th Amendment: 1968 Utah Supreme Court decision in Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266.

Another topic. The phrase: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94) “The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

Do you owe direct and immediate allegiance to your servants?

Another Topic. The term “citizen” as used in government laws

In Powe v. U.S. 109 F2d 147, 149 (1940) the court determined what the term `citizen‘ means in federal statutes. Notice that the term `citizen,‘ when used in federal laws, excludes State citizens:

“… a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen’ means `citizen of the United States,’ and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State …”

U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:

A person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.”

In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:

In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen’ is generally, if not always, used in a political sense …  It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution …”

The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626: “In Baldwin v. Franks … it was decided that the word `citizen’ …. was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident’, `inhabitant’, or `person’ …”

14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122: “… the term `citizen’ in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject’ in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government.”

(Read that again. Pay attention. CITIZENS IN THE U.S. ARE SUBJECTS EVER SINCE THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT. What part don’t you understand?)

125 Fed 322, 325: “The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government.”

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794: “The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution

Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520: “… the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause” [of the fourteenth amendment]

That’s right! the US Supreme Court says that Fourteenth Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights.


State Citizens have their same rights in all the states because your Federal Constitution in Article 4, Section 2 guarantees that “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

The Supreme Court in Colgate v. Harvey 296 US 404, 429 clarified that rights of state citizenship are in contradistinction to the rights of US citizenship: “The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other …”

Colgate v. Harvey then concluded that the right to trial by jury and the right to bear arms are not guaranteed to 14th Amendment citizens.

Merely reciting which kind of citizen you are, is admissible by anyone taking you to federal court. Be careful about checking a box on a form claiming US citizenship. Example: The US Supreme Court in Urtetiqui v. D’Arcy 34 US 692: “Where plaintiff, suing in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, alleges that he is a citizen of Maryland, an affidavit signed by him in a suit brought in a state court, reciting that he was not a citizen of the United States, thereby procuring a removal of the case to the federal court, is admissible on defendant’s behalf.”

Your U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2 guarantees “privileges and immunities” to Citizens of each state. K Tashiro v. Jordan 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme Court in 278 US 123: “There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State

That’s correct! If you claim to be a US citizen, you are claiming that you are not entitled to the privileges and immunities of a State Citizen (a right guaranteed by Article 4, Section 2). You are not protected by your U.S. Constitution. You have no rights. Like Esau, you sold your birthright.

Hebrews 12:16: See to it that no one is profane, like Esau, who flippantly sold his birthright.

If you are a citizen, it is because you have voluntarily submitted to the dominion of your political community. Whether you like it or not. No matter how evil.

How did you do this you ask? You have been deceived since birth. Your parents were deceived. When you were issued your Social Security and Birth Certificate BONDS, take notice to the all caps name. Then later when issued a driver’s license, take notice to your all caps name. The word ‘person’ in a court of law means different then the word person in regular dialog. In a court of law, the word ‘person’ means corporation. They took your name and made you a corporation without your consent. Keep reading, more on this…also you need to know that we are operating in Maritime Law which is the law of the sea. Why, when you were born on land? Until you come forward and say hey I’m alive and claim your estate, they will be the wards over all that you do and you will be responsible of following their statues, and codes and paying the price when you don’t. 

US Supreme Court in the 1875 case U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542: “Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights ….  The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”

A Christian, however, would not consent to be governed. He already has a King. He already has a citizenship. Philippians 3:20 (NIV): “But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,”

United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873): “The rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.”

Notice the terminology “enter into society” in the 1798 U.S. Supreme Court case Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386:

The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of the legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit …”

And notice the same terminology in Andrew Jackson’s second inauguration speech March 4, 1833: “Constantly bearing in mind that entering into society individuals must give up a share of liberty …”

Again notice that citizens have given up a share of liberty, whereas non-citizens keep their rights.

Have you entered into a society that uses a vote to determine the morality of abortion, sodomy, divorce, usury, pornography, and property seizure? You paid your fair share for these abominations. Jesus told us not to have dominion over others. Christians would

  • depart from iniquity (2nd Tim 2:19) and
  • come out from among them and be ye separate (2nd Cor 6:17), and
  • be not partakers (Rev 18:4) and
  • seek citizenship in heaven (Phil 3:20, Eph 2:19, Heb 11:16, etc),
  • And be not conformed to this world …” Romans 12:2, and
  • rather be wronged 1st Cor 6:7, and
  • judge not, and love their enemy.
None of these are possible for someone who is trying, with a vote (or a gun*), to force perverted values on others, or to exercise dominion, or to force others to provide for them.
*(Aside: Ballot and bullet and bully are etymologically the same word. They all refer to rock throwing. Examples: President Lincoln 8/26/1863 said “State governments were originally founded on Biblical principles. Here in these United States, or any other Republic, the citizens are the higher power of Romans 13:1. The civil servants who daily blaspheme God are not the higher powers ordained of God. They are a terror to good works. Romans 13:1 (KJV): “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Romans 13:3 (KJV) “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” The same principles that require you to obey lawful government require you to punish tyrants. Among free men there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet.” Another example: The apostle Paul, admits that before he was converted he stoned to death the saints. He confesses in Acts 26:10 “When they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.”)
State governments were originally founded on Biblical principles. Here in these United States, or any other Republic, the citizens are the higher power of Romans 13:1. The civil servants who daily blaspheme God are not the higher powers ordained of God. They are a terror to good works. Romans 13:1 (KJV): “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Romans 13:3 (KJV) “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” The same principles that require you to obey lawful government require you to punish tyrants.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  What a joke that is! Another huge deception!

The Pledge of Allegiance was originally composed in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. Originally the Pledge was composed of these words:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Interestingly you don’t find the controversial phrase “under God“,or even “of the United States of America“. Both of these phrases were later additions to the Pledge, leading to the final version that we all know today:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

I’d like to start with defining some of the key words in the pledge so we are all on the same page as to its meaning.

Pledge: To offer or guarantee by a solemn binding promise, similar to an oath.

Allegiance: [1] the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign. [2] loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like.

Flag:  A usually rectangular piece of fabric of distinctive design that is used as a symbol.(In this case, a symbol for the Republic of the United States of America)

From these definitions we can understand a couple of things. Making a pledge is basically the same thing as an oath. And, giving your allegiance to something or someone is basically committing your loyalty to that entity. Also, the flag stands for something more than itself. It stands for the country/government it belongs to. In short, to pledge your allegiance to the flag means that you are making an oath of loyalty to the country, the United States of America.

#1 Jesus directly and without any qualifiers condemns making an oath to anything for any reason.

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’  But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:33-37)

The people in Jesus’ day had a practice of making oaths for almost anything. The practice of making oaths was to guarantee before men and God that the person making the oath would fulfill his obligation or carry out a promise. It was looked on as a criminal offense to break your oath. Thus, the Jews had been commanded to “fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made”. Jesus, however, changes things. Notice that he does not say, ” Do not swear an oath and then break it.” No, he says: “Do not swear an oath AT ALL”!!! He says that as people who follow God, less words, more often than not, is better than more. Simply say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and do not swear an oath AT ALL!

#2 Jesus also teaches that men cannot serve two masters at the same time.

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” (Matthew 6:24)

We can’t give our loyalty to two masters and be pleasing to both. Whether the choice is between God and money, God and man, God and a government or nation, the choice is always the same, one or the other. It seems that Jesus is saying ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it too’. In light of this it just doesn’t seem possible to me to give my loyalty to God, and then try and give it to a government at the same time. Jesus also said ” My kingdom is not of this world”. Jesus has a kingdom, and just like an earthly kingdom , I can’t be loyal to two kingdoms at once. It would be impossible to be loyal to the USA and Iran at the same time! It’s the same with being part of the kingdom of God. Jesus calls us to be loyal to his kingdom, and if we have given our loyalty to God’s kingdom, how then can we try and give it to America or any other worldly kingdom?

To sum up: Pledging allegiance to the flag equates to making an oath of loyalty to an earthly kingdom. Both acts are condemned by Jesus. I’m ready to stop pledging loyalty to the United States or any other kingdom other than the kingdom of heaven. How about you?

Are you living by your BORN GIVEN RIGHTS BY GOD or have you exchanged them unwillingly and unknowingly for privileges of government. The privilege to travel, instead of your RIGHT to travel. Your privileges of owning property but you really never own it because you will pay taxes on it for the rest of your life or do you really own your property and not have to pay taxes on it by your born given right to do so. Are they taking federal tax out of your paycheck?

Ephesians 6:12 “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

So get right with God and educate yourself. Before you click these links to watch,  I want to say, be sure to come back and READ this information….. it can change your life!

For references below remember the meaning of these words: inalienable/unalienable rights = a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied or transferred. Freedoms that each individual in the United States which cannot be transferred to another person or surrendered except by the individual having those rights. Fundamental rights of the United States Citizens include the right to practice religion, equal protection of laws and the freedom of speech. 

Also for reference to understand below, take note to the definition of the word subject in law: Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws

Common Law right to travel  Click here for the pdf to this book.

Peace, love & light~

Don’t get distracted with these next few video links, COME BACK AND READ THE BLOG!

New World Oder book pic

Obama Signs Executive Order Permanently Implementing Martial Law  Really,  if the shit hits the fan, don’t think you will win a gun battle with the government.  People who are stock piling guns makes no sense, YOU WILL LOSE!  Trust God and know your rights! 


Martial Law: Cop Fired for Speaking Out:

Hillary Clinton confronted by Black Lives Matter Protesters: Surprise, surprise, the protesters weren’t allowed in…. Have ya noticed how peaceful protest used to be able to protest anywhere, its our first Amendment right.  First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances…….   Not anymore..

See more at:

Martial Law Checkpoint Police, FBI putting marks on people’s hands in Michigan. Before you watch this, I just want to say for those of you who don’t believe we are under Martial Law or believe we are under Martial Law and think that it is ok, you need to understand it. Let me help you. Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.[1] It is usually imposed temporarily when the government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, or provide essential services). The United States went bankrupt in 1933 and we have been under martial law ever since! That is the “state of emergency” that has been placed and issued for Martial Law. Did you know that? I didn’t, I just learned that too.  That freaked me out!! That led me on this journey, well part of the reason, I’ve been studying for years. You will learn more about the bankruptcy later…

Here is your proof that we are under Martial Law! 

The only direct authority for the use of fringe on the American flag is in the Army regulations.

Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(b) (1979) states:
b. National flags listed below are for indoor displays and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden-yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide.
Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(c) states:
c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for:
(1) each office, headquarters, and organization authorized a positional color, distinguishing flag, or organizational color;
(2) each organization of battalion size or larger, temporary or permanent, not otherwise authorized a flag of the United States;
(3) each military installation not otherwise authorized an indoor flag of the United States, for the purpose of administering oaths of office;
(4) each military courtroom;
(5) each US Army element of joint commands, military groups, and missions. One flag is authorized for any one headquarters operating in a dual capacity;
(6) each subordinate element of the US Army Recruiting Command;
(7) each ROTC unit, including those at satellite schools;
(8) each reception station.

Did you see anything there about use in a non-military court of law? So if there is a gold fringe around the flag in your courtroom, you are in a military courtroom! We are under martial law!  PLEASE WAKE UP!! 

Agenda 21, Jade Helm 15: LONG TERM AGENDA IN EFFECT, Obama signs a bill that would have innocent people in prison with no trial and permanently there. 

I recommend that you read The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Most importantly you need to understand that they use bad events to carry out their plans. Come on, did you really think they were enforcing Martial Law to look for that persons murder? They used that event to get the people adjusted and accustom to Martial Law, seeing it and hearing about it. You will see similar scenarios played out in movies and the down play in media of the seriousness of this. This is not a plan that has been put into play only recently. This is a plan that has been in effect for YEARS, no DECADES!  Do you know how many years there are in a decade? 10 years! To control the number of people in this great nation that I have been blessed to be born in, it would take DECADES for it to work. And how do they do it, how can they control the population that so greatly outnumbers them? DECEPTION!!! THEY’RE SNAKES!!!  I plead with you to open your mind. The plan is to depopulate , the plan is to disarm,  the plan is to divide and conquer. They juice up the hate crimes and create more hate. Then say we need stricter gun laws.  They have come up with a vaccine for EVERYTHING and are making them mandatory in some places.  They use fear factors to get us to willingly get vaccines and it’s really being used to depopulate the population for population control. They prescribe drugs like candy to depressed people and one MAJOR side effect is suicide or uncontrollable outburst then they say we need stricter gun laws and no one questions it because the person was already depressed with problems. THEY WANT TO DISARM THE PEOPLE. WE OUT NUMBER THEM. THEY FEAR US. WE HAVE THE POWER. STOP GIVING IT AWAY. They are keeping this information secret because if it got out that the United States was bankrupt and we are their slaves, there would be a Revolution.  IF YOU DON’T KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!!! 

Are You a U.S. Citizen or Are You a State Citizen?

Very important information below. What people don’t understand is that when we enter into a court room there is a different language being used. Words do not mean the same in a court of law as they do in conversations between regular people. For example: The word person to us is a noun meaning , a human being regarded as an individual of flesh and blood, human. In court the word person means Corporation.

In 1933 the United States when into bankruptcy for its third time. This is when they first issued our Social Security bonds and Birth Certificate bonds and sold them to the world bank, making us their slaves through our life’s wages to pay off the national debt. Take a look at you social security card, now flip it over, see the serial number, that is you account number at the Federal Reserve Bank. See that letter in front of the serial number, that tells you which Federal Reserve Bank holds YOUR MONEY! Yes YOUR MONEY! In YOUR NAME! This is why you should copyright your name! Yes you have an account at the Federal Reserve and did you know that the Federal Reserve is not even federal? It’s privately owned.  By issuing the s.s. and birth certificates they made us a corporation without our knowledge or permission. And we have been operating our entire lives as this corporation, not even knowing,  just by using the pieces of paper and our licenses and by using those pieces of paper, we waive our born given sovereign rights as free people.  This is around the same time the Wizard of Oz came out. The Strawman that is with Dorthy through her journey represents the “strawman” they created. Our fictitious identity that they created through our s.s bonds and birth certificate bonds is often referred to as your “strawman”. What happens at the end of Dorthy’s journey? She realized its all a facade, just a voice behind the curtain.  Things that make ya go hhmmm….

Need proof? Here it is….

There appears to be general misunderstanding by people in general as to the difference between a natural person and an artificial person. This will explain that difference.

John Joseph Smith, is a natural, flesh and blood, person, created by God.

JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is a U.S. corporate artificial person, U.S. citizen, created by the government.

In basic English grammar, a name spelled in upper and lower case, such as John Joseph Smith, is indicative of a flesh and blood man, a natural person.

Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term, or in a courtroom may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

On the other hand, a name spelled in all caps, such as JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is indicative of an artificial person.

Artificial persons.  Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

When you go to court and they say all that stuff in the beginning before court starts, have you ever heard anyone say they actually want to reserve their rights? People don’t even know what that means to reserve their rights! By not reserving your rights, under common law jurisdiction,  you are waiving them and submitting to being that fictitious person, now the court can do business with you. If you reserve your rights, the court can not do business with you!

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) “The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.”

The “United States” is defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15)(A) as a “Federal corporation”.

It is also a municipal corporation.

Municipal. In narrower, more common, sense, it means pertaining to a local governmental unit, commonly, a city or town or other governmental unit. In its broader sense, it means pertaining to the public or governmental affairs of a state or nation or of a people. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

So the federal corporation United States, that pertains to the public affairs of a people, would be a municipal corporation. The federal government pertains to the affairs of its sovereign people.

Municipal corporation. A body corporate consisting of the inhabitants of a designated area created by the legislature with or without the consent of such inhabitants for governmental purposes . . .
A municipal corporation has a dual character, the one public and the other private, and exercises corresponding twofold functions and duties — one class consisting of those acts performed by it in the exercise of delegated sovereign powers for benefit of people generally, as arm of the state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state, and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit, or for the benefit of its citizens alone, or citizens of the municipal corporation and its immediate locality.  Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation is an artificial person, as shown above, and consists of the general inhabitants called citizens, and these artificial persons (citizens) were created by the legislature, not by God. A corporation can be a citizen itself, and that corporation can have its own citizens. A corporation also has its own officers. When a corporation is dissolved, then the officers of that corporation no longer exist. A government has its own citizens and employees. When that government is dissolved, then those citizens also cease to exist, since both officers and citizens of a corporation are both artificial persons.

Corporate citizen. Corporate status in the state of incorporation . . . Black’s 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation in its broader sense, such as the United States, consists of the inhabitants (U.S. citizens) of a designated area (federal United States). And a corporation can through its legislative branch create artificial persons, who are termed citizens of the municipal corporation. Can an artificial person create a flesh and blood natural man? Can the creator create a being superior to itself? Or can an artificial person only create (make) another artificial person?

When the municipal corporation United States, creates a citizen through legislative act, that citizen is then a corporate U.S. citizen. That corporate citizen’s name is spelled in all capital letters, to indicate that it is an artificial person, as distinguished from a natural person whose name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. That corporate citizen is subject to its creator, the U.S. government, and is subject to its exclusive jurisdiction.

Constitution of the United States of America
Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A citizen of the United States is a corporate citizen, with corporate status, created by the corporation called United States, and is acting as their agent for the purpose of collecting revenue. This citizen has only privileges and immunities under the 14th Amendment. A natural person has inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution. A person with corporate status, would have corporate income.


Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) This doctrine – known as the collective entity rule- has a lengthy and distinguished pedigree.

What is a “collective entity”? A collective entity is simply a corporate entity. Since the status of U.S. citizen can be created by naturalization let’s see what naturalization is, and determine if a U.S. citizen is part of a collective entity.

Naturalization. The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. In the United States collective naturalization occurs when designated groups are  made citizens by treaty (as Louisiana Purchase), or by a law of Congress (as in annexation of Texas and Hawaii).Black’s 6th Ed.

Person. Scope and delineation of term necessary for determining to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protections since this Amendment expressly applies to “person”.

Let’s review the definition of artificial person.

Artificial persons.  Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black’s  Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

The 14th Amendment applies to “persons”, and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person. “Collective” “naturalization occurs when designated groups” (inhabitants) “are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress”.  These artificial persons were “created and devised by human laws (14th Amendment U.S. citizen) for the (revenue) purposes of society and government”, and have their names spelled in all capital letters. These designated groups are “made” or created corporate citizens/employees and are distinguished from natural persons.

A natural person, with his named spelled in upper and lower case letters, has inalienable rights, and is NOT a corporate U.S. citizen. An artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, has his name spelled in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be an artificial person at the same time.

The theme of the collective entity rule states:
Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944) But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations.

Under the collective entity rule, if John Joseph Smith contracted to be a representative or agent of the corporate citizen JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, then he would not be able to exercise his inalienable rights, which are his personal rights. John Joseph Smith (American Citizen) is contracting to be the agent of JOHN JOSEPH SMITH (U.S. citizen), thereby waiving his inalienable rights.

After the birth of John Joseph Smith, a new artificial person was created (JOHN JOSEPH SMITH), by the 14th Amendment, under the collective entity rule, and was naturalized as a corporate citizen of the United States. This did not destroy the natural person, but simply created a second separate legal entity, a legal fiction, artificial person. This legal fiction was created as an agent (U.S. citizen) of the corporate U.S. government to engage in commerce and collect revenue for the governments, federal, state, and local. You contracted to represent this artificial person, thereby waiving your inalienable rights.

A sovereign flesh and blood person is an American Citizen or State Citizen.

A corporate U.S. citizen is an artificial person and is a government agent/employee, (slave).


For reference below remember the meaning of these words: inalienable/unalienable rights = a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied or transferred. Freedoms that each individual in the United States which cannot be transferred to another person or surrendered except by the individual having those rights. Fundamental rights of the United States Citizens include the right to practice religion, equal protection of laws and the freedom of speech. 

Also for reference to understand below, take note to the definition of the word subject in law: Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws

Law Dictionary: What is SUBJECT? definition of SUBJECT (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Back to the bankruptcy…. when the United States went bankrupt in 1933 was about the same time they started to issue social security cards (bonds) and birth certificates (bonds). They took those bonds and sold them to the World Bank for money and we are the collateral and became enslaved to our government with our wages, taxes ect… to get THEM out of debt! Have you ever noticed how on your driver’s license, credit cards, bills ect… that you name is in all CAPS? This is your “strawman” / “corporation” that they created in YOUR NAME.  You may start to get confused later in this article if you don’t understand the strawman/corporation that you are, that our government created without your permission so this is how they have deceived us and by operating under our fictitious NAMEs, we unknowingly are giving them authority over us. When we realize this and start to claim our born given rights it is important that you learn the language, words, codes, and statues or you get can yourself into some trouble. You can’t speak out and claim your rights if you don’t know what you are talking about. You must back it up with FACTS, statues, codes ect… I will be posting more on this topic so stay tuned… do your own research, I have only scratched the surface and have just started using common law in my own life. I’m looking for the right words to describe my experience when I went to court recently and reserved my rights under common law jurisdiction. It was definitely a learning experience. I made some mistakes but nothing that can’t be fixed. My mistake was I allowed them to talk me in circles when I knew the facts. I had the facts right in front of me in my notes.  I didn’t ask the right questions to make the judge have to state what jurisdiction he was operating under. It was quit interesting to see how the lawyer took over and spoke up when I put the judge on the spot and the room was silent. It was interesting to see how they worked together. I know this, so I recognized it.   Another thing…. if you want to reserve your rights DON’T have a lawyer represent you, if you do, you are already under contract with them. They work together and have an obligation and oath to each-other and the B.A.R, NOT YOU!!! You can’t reserve your rights under common law jurisdiction if you have a lawyer represent you. So the first thing I did when I went to court that day was fire my lawyer….  but he would still have to go before the judge to withdrawal so he was still standing beside me when I spoke to the judge. I should have asked him to sit down once he withdrew, there was NO REASON for him to even have an opportunity to interrupt my conversation with the judge!  They were working as a team and I recognized it.  But before we even got into the courtroom, he knew I was up to something… he saw me walk into the law library before the courtroom was open. He literally snuck up on me and surprised me as I was using the computer and was trying to offer me a “special” public defender. I said no thank you, he kept asking me why don’t I want a lawyer, I told him I didn’t need one, he kept asking me why I told him I didn’t have to tell him why, it’s non of his business, I’m all set. The judge and the lawyers are master manipulators, they talked me in circles and I stood my ground but I made the mistake of not insisting they answer my questions. I asked the judge what jurisdiction he was operating under and he would not answer me. If he would have answered me the case would have been dismissed and I’ll tell you why.

On December 9th 1945, International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations. 

This is what I mean by you have to know your codes, & statues ect…

22 CFR 92.12-92.31FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that an oath is required to take office. 

Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus you become a foreign entity, agency, or state.  That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (every single court and that courts personnel is considered a separate foreign entity.)

Title 22 USC (Foreign Relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents. 

Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section. 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court Jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign State. 

The 11th amendment states “The Judicial power of the United States shall NOT be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of a Foreign State.” (A foreign entity , agency or state cannot bring any suit against a United States citizen without abiding the following procedure.)


Title 22 CFR 93.1-93.2 states that the Department of State has to be notified of any suit, and in turn, has to notify the United States citizen of said suit.  Read that one again too! WOW!! That’s heavy/deep. (excuse my lingo) and that’s not gonna happen, the court is NOT going to contact the D.o.S in Washington to bring these petty charges against me.

Finally… Title 28 USC 1330 states that the United States District Court has to grant permission for the suit, once the court has been supplied sufficient PROOF that the United States citizen is ACTUALLY a CORPORATE ENTITY.  And that is not going to happen, because they can’t, it’s not possible, we are human of flesh, we are not a corporation, they can’t do anything to us as we claim our born given rights. But if we stand up and when they ask you in court are you John Doe for example, and you say yes then you have just went into contract with them. You say, I am John that’s it, just John.  I am human. May sound funny, and you may feel silly saying that but that is what you need to do.  I must say as a Legal Disclaimer that I am not a lawyer nor am I presenting to be and I do not offer any legal advice, you do this at your own risk, I am not liable, I had to put that in there…. do your own research, get into some social groups with people who are living it and are practicing it, you can learn from their mistakes too.

Title 28 USC 1602-1611 (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged and a demand of proper jurisdiction to be stated. This was my mistake. I asked what jurisdiction the court was operating under and they didn’t answer.  Usually at this point the case will get dismissed. He went in circles. When they don’t answer,  I should have said, I want it stated for the record that this court has not stated its jurisdiction and I want this case dismissed. …..and they won’t say because that would mean they were operating illegally.  They are a foreign entity. A foreign entity CANNOT prosecute a United States of America Citizen. I didn’t keep asking.  They ended it with trying to convince me to speak to their “special” attorney and gave me a continuance. I SHOULDN’T have left there with a continence. I should have stood my ground and politely kept asking and politely demand that the case be dismissed. They had no jurisdiction over me and I knew that. I’m so mad at myself. So now the next step is,  I won’t go to court on the date they gave me,  but what I will have to do,  is send them a letter notifying them with a Notice of Removal with all the facts in it and demand for the case to be dismissed.  I do not consent and I waive the benefit.   Wish me luck although I don’t believe in luck. I will certainly keep you updated on my experience with it so stay tuned, come back and check out my page…. Now for some more very interesting and important information for a better understanding of how we got in this mess of a nation and more on the “person”, “subject”, and “citizen.”

The best kept secret in America. The government knows this information, but they will not admit it AND WE ARE NOT TAUGHT THIS IN SCHOOLS. Schools are the controlled institutions THEY designed to brainwash us. {His-story} Have you ever read the Bill of Rights or The Declaration of Independence in school and actually had a detailed discussion about it? I haven’t.  I heard the “phrases/titles”  over and over again but NEVER a real talk about them. AND I MEAN ‘REAL TALK’. And honestly now that I think back, it ALWAYS confused me that we said in the allegiance “Under God” and on the dollar bill it says “In God we trust”. I used to stare at the triangle on the back of the bill. We were taught that the government was separate from God but this country was founded on God’s law.  So why are they saying in God we trust if we were being taught that government and God were separate?  They have been trying to take God out of the equation for a long time and now the time has come.

I ALWAYS KNEW in my spirit that something wasn’t right. I just got goose bumps thinking about it because I DO BELIEVE in God and he as ALWAYS led me to what ever  it was I needed, whether it me money, love, guidance or information I was looking for, whether it be about health or whatever, and now this…. and now this…. for years,  and I mean YEARS I was feeling helpless and afraid because I was seeing the direction of America and I knew what was happening, and in all my research, no one offered a solution. The information just kept scaring me, and scaring me,  more and more. People would agree with the things I was saying and I would hear them talk about it and I watched YouTube’s on it but no one ever offered a solution.  I’m not saying that this is a solution but it helps to know your rights.   Most people don’t know this about me so I’ll share it with you. I KNEW to the point that I DID NOT ALLOW  tel-lie-vision in my home for almost 15 years now. It wasn’t until my daughter was three when I realized the impact the tel-lie-vision had on her.  From that point forward I NEVER payed for cable. I NEVER allowed it in my home to protect my daughter from their ‘programs’. That is exactly what they are doing you know, they are programming you!  God is always on time, ALWAYS, RIGHT ON TIME!!!! I must give thanks RIGHT NOW! THANK YOU GOD! Have you ever noticed how back in the day ‘programs’ were always about family,  The Walton’s, The Andy Griffin Show, The Brady Bunch?  They ate together as a family, they discussed things as a family, they solved problems as a family, they loved and respected each other and they even all lived together. Now, notice how ‘programs’ today, the kids will disrespect their parents, talk back and not do what is asked of them, get into trouble and the parents are made to look stupid, the kids roll their eye’s at the parents ect…. the Disney cartoon movies for our toddlers all have seductively sexy characters with tiny waist and tiny clothes with large breast, even tinker bell, look at her outfit, how about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Smurfs, why is there only one female Smurf?  And what do the kids want to do? They want to watch them over and over and over and over. In elementary school, how do we learn to add or subtract, to spell or to write, we do it over and over and over and over and over….. so when they are watching these ‘programs’ what do you think is really happening here?  They have been what I call hypnotized/programmed! What did you think was going to happen? And you wonder why kids today don’t respect their parents and why young girls today are so promiscuous?

They are even using tel-lie-vision to program YOU too!  They use tel-lie-vision to get us, the people accustom to what is about to happen, they start with the air-force drills and the news will speak about it and say it is a practice run, for what?  They put movies out that seem far-fetched but this stuff is really going on, so when it becomes full force into effect, we the people will be more accepting of it and not give too much of a resistance to it.

They create a problem, so that they can create the solution when it was the solution they wanted all along, like 9/11, & ISIS. 9/11 the solution was to tap the phones and track our library cards, violate our privacy rights and fund money for more war equipment and all kinds of other bullshit..  They have subliminal messages that speak to your subconscious. Did you see the video clip above in the beginning of this blog where they slipped in the AARP commercial something about martial law in the background noise, I forgot what is was but something like that and then there was a NEWS report with an apology saying they picked some background noise from a  link or something and didn’t realize what it was and that is was in the commercial, they didn’t know, BULLSHIT!!! BBBBBUUUUUULLLLLLSSSSSHHHHHIIIIITTTTTTT! They knew exactly what it was!!!!!!!!  It was subliminal! Sorry I got side tracked…

Now back to business…

Every individual born in one of the 50 sovereign states was born an individual American sovereign, with inalienable rights. Those inalienable rights included life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness included the right to engage in a common occupation or business without a license, travel freely from one place to another without permission from the state (driver’s license), the inalienable right to acquire and possess property without paying property tax, etc.

When you are born, you are born a sovereign American with inalienable rights. A lot of birth certificates have the spelling of your name correct, in upper and lower case, so the birth certificate is NOT the document that creates the U.S. citizen. All the birth certificate does, is provide proof that a real live sovereign was born. A corporation cannot have a live birth. Only a real sovereign can be born live.

So then what does create the U.S. citizen, if it is not the birth certificate?  The U.S. citizen is born by commercial contract. And that contract is your Social Security application, among others. You cannot get a social security number without the birth certificate of someone who is contracting, to be this new entity U.S. citizen. The U.S. citizen status is created along with your social security number, and it is this number that identifies the corporate government employee. Yes you are not a corporate government employee! If the government is the beast that enslaves you, then this truly would be the mark of the beast. You waive your inalienable rights when you contract to have a social security number. When someone asks you for a Social Security number, they are just making sure that they are dealing with the U.S. citizen.

The entity you are applying to, for this number, is an artificial person, a government corporation, a fiction. Can a fiction create a real person? No. A fiction can only create another fiction. So when you get your social security number, it is the number of a brand new person, a corporate U.S. citizen. Since a corporation created the number, they can only apply that number to their property. Which they did! 

Birth certificates today have your name in all caps. I believe this is just the government’s attempt to usurp your sovereign status, long before you apply for a social security card. Maybe that is why the IRS wants every newborn to be assigned a SS# at birth. So they can attempt to eliminate your presumption of sovereignty right from your birth and start right out as a U.S. citizen. (slave)

Another interesting observation is that the 14th Amendment was certified on July 28, 1868. The day BEFORE, on July 27, Congress passed an Act called the Right of Expatriation. If Congress was going to create a new corporate citizen, then they also had to create a remedy to get out of it if you didn’t want to be a U.S. citizen. This was the way!

The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship, the United States citizen. This citizenship applies only to ‘persons subject to the jurisdiction’ of the federal government. All jurisdiction implies superiority of power. A ‘person’ is always an artificial corporate entity with its name spelled in all caps.

YOU are “presumed” to be a U.S. citizen, unless and until you can prove otherwise.

A Sovereign/Citizen of the United States of America (American Citizen), lives in one of the 50 sovereign states, and has inalienable rights secured by state and national constitutions.

The artificial person, U.S. citizen, is a legal fiction that has been created by the federal government, via the social security application, and is a corporate employee of the United States by virtue of being a U.S. citizen. He is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government and of the state government and subject to the corporate income tax.

The U.S. citizen is created property, created to raise revenue for the government, your employer. You have essentially contracted to be liable for the debts of your master, the federal government.

Before the Declaration of Independence, there were no American Citizens, because there was no America, as a country. The people were subjects of the British Crown.  After the Declaration of Independence, each state was its own sovereign state, and the citizens were State Citizens. State Citizens had inalienable rights secured by each state’s constitution. But we have a problem with the word “citizen”. Can you be a citizen and a sovereign at the same time? Is a king a citizen of his own country? Or is he a sovereign and not a citizen? A ‘citizen’ is the same as a ‘subject’, and a subject always has a superior power over him. So, you are either a sovereign, OR a citizen/subject. You cannot be both at the same time.

This is confirmed by an early Supreme Court decision.
Chisholm v. Georgia 2 Dall (U.S.) 419, 456-480 (1793) (p.470) All the country now possessed by the United States was then a part of the dominions appertaining to the crown of Great Britain. Every acre of land in this country was then held mediately or immediately from that crown. All the people of this country were then, subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed allegiance to him; . . . From the crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it; . . . Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; . . .
(p.471) At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.
(p.458) But in the case of the King, the sovereignty had a double operation. While it vested him with jurisdiction over others, it excluded all others from jurisdiction over him. The law, says Sir William Blackstone, ascribes to the King the attribute of sovereignty: he is sovereign and independent within his own dominions; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth. Hence it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the King, even in civil matters; because no court can have jurisdiction over him:
for all jurisdiction implies superiority of power. The principle is, that all human law must be prescribed by a superior.
(p.455) As the State has claimed precedence of the people; so in the same inverted course of things, the Government has often claimed precedence of the State; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning sovereignty owe their existence. By a State I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person.
It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its rights: And it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members: It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out the private fortunes of individuals.
(p. 456) The only reason, I believe, why a free man is bound by human laws, it that he binds himself.
Upon the same principles, upon which he becomes bound by the laws, he becomes amenable to the Courts of Justice, which are formed and authorized by those laws. If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this, why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do likewise? . . . In one sense, the term sovereignty has for its correlative, subject. In this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the Constitution of the United States,. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects.

“ALL jurisdiction implies superiority of power”! So if you are under the jurisdiction of a government, they have the superior power! You are bound by the laws only because you choose to be! When you pledge allegiance to any country, you become a subject of that country, and you waive your sovereignty. But, if you pledge allegiance only to YOUR creator, then you are the superior power, and no human government is over you. After the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, American sovereigns acquired citizenship status, called Citizen of the united States of America.  Also known as American Citizen, with a capital “C”.

DeLima v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 179 (1900) The Constitution is not a physical substance. It is in the nature of a grant or power, or what would be termed in private law a power of attorney. A real constitution is a grant of rights or powers by a sovereign. The sovereign cannot be limited, for he is the source of all law. Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 370

In another Supreme Court case they ruled:
Graves v. Schmidlapp 315 U.S. 657-665 (1941) The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is coextensive with that to which it is an incident. All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends are objects of taxation.

Are the American people sovereigns OVER the government? Or are they subjects of the government, UNDER the government’s jurisdiction and power?

Important points. Sovereign Americans are above the governments they delegated management powers to. Governments are artificial persons, legal fictions. Governments, as artificial persons, can own property and incur debts on their own, separate from the sovereign people. The personal fortunes of the sovereign people are not to be used to discharge the government’s debts. Governments have complete power over their OWN property and subjects. All jurisdiction implies superiority of power. All subjects UNDER the jurisdictional power of a government, are objects of taxation. As the Supreme Court stated above, a free man is subject to human laws only because he binds himself. You, as one of the joint owners of this country, have agreed to abide by certain laws, that you have agreed to. These laws are designated in the Constitution. Remember these concepts. They are critical to the understanding of freedom from taxation.

The Supreme Court of Colorado has ruled:
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Case 380 P.2d 34 (1962) Natural rights – inherent rights and liberties are not the creatures of constitutional provisions either at the national or state level. The inherent human freedoms with which mankind is endowed are “antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”

You become subject to the human laws because you bind yourself to them as an artificial person, (the fictitious person the government created when they issued your social security cards and birth certificates. You waive your sovereign status, to become a subject.) How do you do that? By contracting  with the government and accepting benefits. How do you contract? By paying taxes, getting a driver’s license, getting a marriage license,  by signing the traffic ticket, by going to court and it doing so, you’re giving up your inalienable rights.  It’s all a trick, you end up waiving your rights to get what they are telling you is a benefit ( tax breaks if you get married, tax break if you own a house, ect) of their programs and all they are really doing is just balancing the books.  Have you ever noticed that they really don’t care what happened that got you in court to begin with, just pay a small fine, or a big one and then you can go?  Lawyers create the laws, not the government and then you have to hire a lawyer to understand the laws. It’s all bullshit! Sorry, I said it, I had to!  The only way the government will contract with you, is if you waive your inalienable rights and agree to be UNDER their jurisdiction. You unknowingly give up your inalienable rights for so-called “privileges”!  They will not (contract) with you if you claim your rights. They can’t. 

Before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, Americans were called, (with a capital “C”) Citizens of the United States of America. (American Citizen, or American, for short) If you were born in America, you were born a sovereign with inalienable rights. It was a common understanding among the people. Up until then, slavery was still accepted in America. Slaves were not Citizens, state or national, but were merely considered the personal ‘property’ of the slave holders. The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, just 3 years before the 14th. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. But that created a new problem. The newly freed slaves were not citizens of any state or country, because they were just property, and property did not have citizenship. To solve the problem, the 14th amendment was passed. This amendment created a new class of citizenship. This new class was legally called: ‘United States citizen’, (with a small “c”). NOT ‘United States of America Citizen’, but just ‘United States citizen’. Notice that the U.S. citizen is spelled with a lower case ‘c’. This is to show a lower class of citizenship. This class of citizen (U.S. citizen) is a privilege granted by the federal government, and not a sovereign inalienable right.

From Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition:

Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states;

The Civil War was fought from 1861-1865. The significance of this will be seen later.

Let’s see just what the 14th Amendment really does say.

Constitution of the United States of America
14th Amendment (1868). Section 1. All persons
born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice the wording of this amendment carefully. If they were talking about Citizens of the 50 states, then it would read “and subject to the jurisdiction(s) thereof”. Jurisdictions would be plural if it applied to more than one entity. But since it applies only to the United States government, singular, is also shows the jurisdiction to be singular. Jurisdiction, not jurisdictions.

Several other things to notice here. This section 1 of the amendment has two parts.

The first part has to do with the citizenship of ‘persons’, subjects.

The second part has to do with the states being required to protect the privileges and immunities of the United States citizen. We will look at the first part first.

The first part of this amendment says that ‘persons’ born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside. We just learned that jurisdiction implies superiority of power, so is a United States citizen superior to the government? NO! The roles are reversed. Notice this does not say they are citizens of the United States ‘of America’. Just the ‘United States’. Is there a difference? Let’s check it out.

First, what is a ‘person’? There are legally two kinds of ‘persons’. First there is the ‘natural person’ with inalienable rights. This is a flesh and blood human being, the sovereign individual. Second, there is just the term ‘person’. When just the term ‘person’ is used, and not ‘natural person’, it means an artificial person, such as a corporation, trust, government, etc. A human being can be both a natural person and an artificial person at the same time. How do you tell the difference? What you need to understand is when the United States went into bankruptcy in 1933 that is when they used the system of issuing social security cards (bonds) and birth certificates (bonds)

It is as simple as whether you spell your name in all capital letters or not. More on this in a bit. The important thing to remember at this point is that artificial persons are property. Property in Latin is res. Property located in a certain territory, would be its place of residence. So property (res) belonging to and located in the State of Colorado, would be ‘resident’ of the state. Are you a resident of a state or of the United States?

Important point. Since a government is an artificial person, according to the Supreme Court, does an artificial person have jurisdiction over the sovereign that created the artificial person? No. Does the artificial person (government) have jurisdiction over any new artificial persons, or property, created by the government? Yes. A government has complete power over its subjects and its own property. Remember, the Constitution is just a power of attorney from the sovereign people to the government. That power of attorney extends to anything the government, as an artificial person, creates or owns.

So a ‘resident’ would be an artificial ‘person’ (property) located within the jurisdiction of a certain government. Almost all state and federal statutes apply to ‘persons’ who are citizens and residents, and are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They rarely apply to ‘natural persons’.

Now to the second part of the 14th Amendment. It applies to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’.” This could only mean the territorial jurisdiction of the federal government. As stated in the Supreme Court case of Chisholm v. Georgia quoted earlier, all jurisdiction implies superiority of power. So if you are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, that implies their power is superior to your sovereign power, or the sovereign power of your state. In other words, you are not a sovereign, but a subject, if you are a U.S. citizen, name spelled in all caps.

A ‘U.S. citizen’ is a subject of the federal government, subject to its jurisdiction. An ‘American Citizen’ is a sovereign individual, and the government is subject to him, and no court has jurisdiction over him, without his permission. When you present yourself to a court, you give them temporary jurisdiction for a certain issue to be settled. Once it is settled, then that jurisdiction ceases. That is why plaintiffs must prove jurisdiction before courts can hear a case.

An important distinction needs to be understood here. The sovereign technically has inalienable rights, NOT constitutional rights. We all call them constitutional rights, but they are not. They are inalienable rights SECURED by constitutions, state and federal. The basis of any inalienable right is established in the Declaration of Independence. This document very clearly states that “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.” Look for the mention of God, or inalienable rights, in the Constitution, and you will not find them.

Many patriots are making constitutional arguments, when they should be making inalienable rights arguments. There is no basis for inalienable rights of property under the constitution, but there IS under the Declaration of Independence! We are using the wrong document to claim our rights under!

For example, the way to state a constitutional argument would be to state that you have the inalienable right to bear arms, stated in the Declaration of Independence, and ‘secured’ by the Bill of Rights, in the 2nd Amendment. You have the inalienable right to not be a witness against yourself, ‘secured’ by the 5th Amendment. This gives your argument a much stronger legal basis and is much harder to dismiss, if you ever did go to court. The Bill of Rights, means the Bill of Inalienable Rights, based on the Declaration of Independence, and secured by the Constitution!

If you are a citizen of the United States, then JUST WHERE and WHAT IS THE ‘UNITED STATES’?

Is there a territorial difference between the United States of America, (the 50 sovereign states) and the United States government (10 miles square, plus possessions)?

What is the legal definition of United States?

Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition.
United States. This term has several meanings.
(1) It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, (2) it may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United states extends, (3) or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. from Hooven & Allison v. Evatt 324 U.S. 652

The first definition (1) only applies to other countries in their relationship to America. It doesn’t apply to us.

The third definition (3) applies only to the 50 states united under the Constitution. That does apply to us.

The second definition (2) is the one we are primarily concerned about. This definition applies to the geographical territory over which the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States extends, pertaining to the 14th Amendment jurisdiction over citizens. Again, we must go the Constitution to see where that territory is. The United States has exclusive jurisdiction only over certain areas. Since each of the 50 states were separate sovereign states, the sovereignty of the United States did not extend to these 50 states, unless they incorporated. What’s left? The Constitution tells us.

U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the States in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings;

According to the Constitution, the territory of the United States of America includes the 50 sovereign states, each of which have their own constitution and jurisdiction. The geographical territory of sovereign jurisdictions do not overlap.

The territory of the United States ‘of America’ is different from the territory of the United States ‘government’.

The territorial jurisdiction of the United States government only extends to tens miles square, to places purchased, and to property owned. This would include territories and possessions, temporarily acquired through treaties, that are not part of the 50 states. Persons who are under this exclusive jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States ‘government’, and of the state where they reside. This is a little confusing because Washington, D.C. is considered a state, and the possessions, like Puerto Rico, are considered states. They are political states, but are not part of the 50 sovereign states.

What does the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) say? IRC 7701 is a section devoted to definitions. What is their definition of the United States?

IRC 7701(9) United States. The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

The States? ONLY the States? Does that mean the 50 states, or just U.S.possessions, which are also called states? The use of the word “only” would indicate that this is a restrictive definition. Back to the definitions.

IRC 7701(10) State. The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

When definition statutes are issued with the word “includes” it means that only the items or categories listed in the definition are included, everything else is excluded. The District of Columbia is a political state of the United States. It is property of the federal government, just like the U.S. possessions like Guam and the Virgin Islands are. Since the 50 states are not mentioned in the definition of state, they are not included.Why? Because the jurisdiction of the United States government, for income tax purposes, includes only areas under its jurisdiction, as stated in the Constitution. The 50 states are separate sovereign states, according to the state constitutions, and therefore would not come under the geographical jurisdiction of the United States federal government, a corporation. As you saw above, the 14th amendment created citizens who WERE under the jurisdiction of the federal government! The IRC defines United States person for us.

IRC 7701(30) United States person. The term “United States person” means – (A) A citizen or resident of the United States.

So if you were a U.S. citizen, you would be in that jurisdiction subject to the federal income tax. And you would be defined as a “Taxpayer”.

IRC 7701(14) Taxpayer. The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

So if the 50 states were not under the jurisdiction of the United States government, how come they are NOW subject to all the laws handed down by Congress? We know that states can voluntarily give up their sovereignty to the federal government, just the same as we can. They have not done that, have they? Or have they? When the Civil War was fought, all states were not admitted back into the union until their constitutions were approved by Congress. Why was this approval needed? When the southern states seceded from the union, were they then sovereign states, separate from the United States of America, or U.S. territories? When these states, and all future states, were admitted to the new union, were they conquered states, through an act of war? Were they new territory acquired by the federal government, and now under their jurisdiction? Are the 50 states now just political states of the federal government, just like D.C.?

What about territory, or states, acquired through conquest (war)? This territory is not purchased. Is this territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States government? Yes. Temporarily. Any territory acquired by war, or treaty, is acquired for the sovereign people, and this territory is held, in trust, for the people until they decide to make the territory into sovereign states and add them to the Union.

Let’s check with the Supreme Court again.
Hooven & Allison Co. v Evatt 324 U.S. 675 (1945) That our dependencies, (possessions) acquired as the result of our war with Spain, are territories belonging to, but not a part of the Union of states under the Constitution, was long since established by a series of decisions in this court . . . This status has ever since been maintained in the practical construction of the Constitution by all the agencies of our government in dealing with our insular possessions. It is no longer doubted that the United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of power of Congress conferred by Sec. 3 of Article IV of the Constitution “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States.” In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for the United States. (the 50 united States)

When Congress passes laws for the territories of the United States they are not limited by the Constitution. When they pass laws for the 50 states they must follow the limitations of the Constitution, because the 50 states only delegated certain powers to Congress. Powers not delegated were reserved to the states or to the people. (10th Amendment) The 50 states are superior to the federal government. So how does the federal government get the power to make laws for the 50 states?

DeLima v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 179 (1900) If the law or treaty making power enacts that the territory over which the military arm of the government has extended shall come under the permanent absolute sovereign jurisdiction of the United States, a new and different status arises. The former sovereign then loses all right of reverter, and the territorial limits of the United States are in so far enlarged.

Ponder this thought. If the federal government acquired ALL the states, after the Civil War, through the military arm of the government, OR, even today just through a declared national emergency by the Commander-in-Chief, and instituted martial law, would the 50 states lose their sovereign status and come under the sovereign jurisdiction of the federal government, by conquest? Yes they would. Then the President, as commander-in-chief, would rule the country by presidential order. This is exactly our status today. The government pretends that you still have inalienable rights secured by the constitutional, because if they let on what the truth was, there would be a revolution. As we will see in the next chapter, in 1933, the United States declared a national emergency that is still in force today.

This doesn’t sound like what they taught us in school, does it? Maybe we should check out another authority. In 1956 -1957, President Eisenhower commissioned a study of this very issue. There were problems with the jurisdictional status of federal lands located within the 50 states. He wanted to clarify the jurisdictional limits of the federal government.

The study was called:

It was a 2 part report and I will quote from it below:

Part II
Letter of Acknowledgement
. It is my understanding that the report is to be published and distributed, for the purpose of making available to Federal administrators of real property, Federal and States legislators, the legal profession, and others, this text of law of legislative jurisdiction in these areas. The Honorable Herbert Brownwell, Jr. Attorney General, Washington, D.C.

Letter of Transmittal. Together, the two parts of this Committee’s report and the full implementation of its recommendations will provide a basis for reversing in many areas the swing of “the pendulum of power * * * from our states to the central government” to which you referred in your address to the Conference of State Governors on June 25, 1957. Attorney General.

Pg. 45. Since Congress has the power to create States out of Territories and to prescribe the boundaries of the new States, the retention of exclusive legislative jurisdiction over a federally owned area within the States at the time the State is admitted into the Union would not appear to pose any serious constitutional difficulties.

No Federal legislative jurisdiction without consent, cession, or reservation. It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possess no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the States, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions, and subject to the free exercise by the Federal Government of rights with respect to the use, protection, and disposition of its property.
Necessity of State Assent to Transfer of Jurisdiction to Federal Government:
Constitutional consent. — The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State.
Pg. 66 LIMITATIONS ON AREAS OVER WHICH JURISDICTION MAY BE ACQUIRED BY CONSENT OF STATE UNDER CLAUSE 17: In general.– Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution, provides that Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation over “Places” which have been “purchased” by the Federal Government, with the consent of the legislature of the States, “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” The quoted words serve to limit the scope of clause 17. They exclude from its purview places which were not “purchased” by the Federal Government, . . .

Chapter VII (pg 169) Relation of States to Federal Enclaves. Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction: States basically without authority. —When the Federal Government has acquired exclusive legislative jurisdiction over an area, by any of the three methods of acquiring such jurisdiction, it is clear that the State in which the area is located is without authority to legislate for the area or enforce any of its laws within the area. All the powers of government with respect to the area are vested in the United States.

That is just a small sampling, but as you can see, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal government does NOT extend to the geographical territory of the 50 states, except with their consent, or by conquest (like declaring a national emergency). This was a government report done by the Attorney General for the President. But, hey, what does he know? So, for the federal government to have jurisdiction over you, in one of the 50 states, it must own you as property. That property, or artificial person, is called ‘U.S. citizen’.

The distinction that I make here, is, either you are a Citizen of the United States of America (American Citizen), or a United States citizen (federal citizen).

An American citizen lives in one of the 50 states and has inalienable rights secured by the state and national constitutions. He spells his name in upper and lower case letters.

A United States citizen may also live in one of the 50 states, as a resident, but has only privileges and immunities, with no constitutional protections. He spells his name with all capital letters.

Check all your licenses, bills, mortgages, deeds, credit cards, etc and see which one you are claiming to be!

You will notice that the 14th Amendment says that the States shall uphold the ‘privileges and immunities’ of United States citizens. What about their ‘rights’? United States citizens, subject to the government, do not have a constitution, or inalienable rights. You cannot get that FROM a government. Property (artificial persons) can only have civil rights, privileges and immunities granted by the government. They are people who have been slightly upgraded from property (slaves) to having the privilege of being a citizen/subject of the United States government. It sounds much nicer! Remember that the amendment says U.S. citizens are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the government. And you just read how far that exclusive jurisdiction extends.

But don’t rely on this Attorney General’s report, or the Supreme Court decisions in court. The IRS and the courts consider it a frivolous argument!

The 14th Amendment says “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

What does “subject to” mean?

Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition says;
Subject to. Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for.”

Part 2 of the 14th amendment also says that the states: shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; . Why does it make that statement? Didn’t the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) already secure the inalienable rights of the American people? They sure did. Then why a second prohibition?

Legal scholars have argued that the Constitution only limited the powers of the federal government, not the state governments, so this was added in the 14th amendment to restrict the power of the states. Sounds good, doesn’t it? But don’t the constitutions of the 50 states already protect the inalienable rights of the state Citizens? They sure do! Do they need a national constitutional amendment to make them uphold their own state constitutions? Only if the state constitutions were no longer valid. Is your state constitution still valid? Yes.But, the truth is, state constitutions do NOT apply to federal ‘property’ (U.S. citizens).

The governments, state and federal, are not OVER the sovereign people and their sovereign territory. Both governments have been delegated powers to secure the rights of the people, and their jurisdiction in exercising that power, is limited to the property they actually own or control. This property is known as ‘persons’ or ‘residents’.

The United States ‘government’ has jurisdiction only over areas delegated to it by the states and over property acquired by conquest. The state governments also, only have jurisdiction over the areas delegated to them by the state Citizens. Do the people control the government or does the government control the people? Can the government exercise powers not delegated to them? No. The problem is that you DID give them the power, when you waived your inalienable rights and claimed to be a U.S. citizen, subject to their jurisdiction. They just dangled a few carrots (federal benefits, ie: Social Security) over your nose and you grabbed them and asked to be a subject, so you could get MORE benefits. The states did the same thing, so they could get subsidies also.

There is an old saying: “If you give the average person a choice between freedom and a free lunch, he will choose the free lunch”. Which did you choose?

So the only logical conclusion is, that the newly created “United States citizens” (former slaves) were no longer the property of individuals, and they were not American Citizens. And they still didn’t have a constitution to protect them since the Constitution ‘of the United States of America’ did not apply to the federal possessions (property) and territories. The U.S. Constitution only applied to the federal government, and delegated and limited its powers. The federal government was created BY the states. And since U.S. citizens were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the state constitutions did not cover them. U.S. citizens are just federal property, artificial ‘persons’ or ‘residents’, in one of the 50 states. And this also placed them squarely within the legal definition of U.S. jurisdiction.

The states each had their own constitutions. But the jurisdictional powers delegated in these state constitutions also only applied to ‘government’ property in the states, not to the sovereign ‘territory’ of the states. So the ‘United States citizens’ were also citizens of the corporate state governments, (not of the sovereign states themselves) and were not protected by the state constitutions. They technically became dual ‘property’. They were property (persons – residents) of the state government and of the federal government. Today, all state governments are corporations, not sovereign states. They are just sub-corporations of the federal government, and therefore are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. They have traded their sovereignty for federal subsidies, just like you have traded your sovereignty for the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment!

For proof: If you claim constitutional rights in court, the judge will tell you that if you mention constitutional rights again, he will find you in contempt of court, and throw you in jail. He could do that ONLY if you were resident (property) of the state. Because then you would not have inalienable rights, secured by the state constitution. To find out if you have rights, look at how your name is spelled in the heading of the court case. By the way, this principle also applies to local property tax and driver’s license and registration, but that is 2 other books.

Inalienable rights are flagrantly violated on a daily basis by all levels of government, because most people have waived these rights and traded them for privileges. The problem is that so few people claim their inalienable rights anymore that they are no longer recognized by the government. The people would rather have privileges from the government. You can’t claim to be a sovereign over the government, and at the same time claim benefits handed out by the government for their subjects. Does the King or Queen (you) apply for their own government’s benefits, thereby becoming subjects of their own government?

Since both the state and federal governments are now just corporations, can you be the citizen of a corporation? Yes. The corporation is an artificial ‘person’. But, artificial persons can ONLY create new artificial persons (property) that they control. Remember, the United States federal government is just a corporation! So if you are a U.S. citizen, you are a corporate citizen.

These new United States citizens, created by the 14th Amendment, had no one to protect their new status and rights. Worse yet, they had no rights to protect, just privileges and immunities (civil rights) granted by the federal government. The privilege was, being ‘subject’ to the federal government, instead of to a foreign nation, and the immunities were to be added later. And they were.

One by one, the courts gradually added, to U.S. citizens, each of the rights that American citizens had under the first 10 amendments. But they were not inalienable rights, they were only civil rights. Civil rights are rights given to you by the government. Governments cannot give you inalienable rights. You already have those. But civil rights can also be taken away by the government. Since the federal possessions and territories (federal states) had their own governments, just like the 50 states, this amendment prevented both the 50 state governments, and the federal states, from making laws that violated the civil rights of these United States citizen subjects.

And this is where the controversy comes in. The government wants you to believe that a citizen of the United States, is the same as a Citizen of the United States of America. In a court case, if you make this argument, that you are not a resident of the United States, and therefore not a U.S. citizen, because you live in Colorado, the courts will call this a frivolous argument and fine you. And they are right, if you look at how your name is spelled in the heading of that case.

But think about this. If United States citizens are not protected by the U.S. Constitution, then they also lose the Constitutional limitation that all direct taxes be apportioned. That means that they COULD be taxed on their incomes, from whatever source, directly, without apportionment. United States citizens are not protected by the Constitution. Scary, isn’t it?

American Sovereign OR United States citizen? Which are YOU?  You have the right to choose your status as a sovereign in America. But, not as a citizen in the United States. The 50 united States of America are republics, guaranteed a republican form of government. The United States government is a democracy. You must learn the difference! If you choose to be an American Citizen with inalienable rights secured by the constitution, then the constitution says that direct taxes must be apportioned among the states.

On the other hand, if you are a United States citizen, then you have no constitution to protect you, only your civil rights. And those civil rights do not prevent the federal government from taxing your income directly, without apportionment. This is possible because states CAN directly tax their citizens property. So if you are a U.S. citizen, you are in effect the citizen of the state of Washington D.C. And that state can tax its citizen’s property directly. Remember the definition of “State” above, from the Internal Revenue Code? A state is the District of Columbia. The IRC applies to this state and not to the 50 states.

If you live in one of the 50 sovereign states, then you cannot also live in one of the federal states. Their jurisdictions do not overlap. But, can you create an artificial entity, (like a corporation or trust is an artificial entity) and call yourself a United States citizen? Yes you can. How? You may not be aware of it, but it has already been done for you. The way to tell is to look at your name. When an artificial person is named (such as a corporation), proper English grammar says that the name will be spelled in all capital letters. So if your name is Joseph John Smith, the spelling indicates that you are a real live flesh and blood natural human (natural person). But if you spell your name in all capitals, JOSEPH JOHN SMITH, then that indicates that you are an artificial entity (person). There are really two entities with your name! The real person (you) and the fictional corporate U.S. citizen. The problem arises when the natural person contracts to be an artificial person. Which one are you claiming to be?

The 14th Amendment essentially opened the door to classify everyone as a corporate citizen/employee. Let me ask you this. Since the United States is a corporation, how many employees can there be in a corporation? Would it be possible for every U.S. citizen to be unofficially classified as an employee of this corporation United States, as one of the privileges of U.S. citizenship? And as an employee of the federal government, you would be liable for federal income tax. That is why their name is “Internal” Revenue. It is only collected internally, from its own employees, who are exercising a taxable privilege, government employment! And as a corporate employee, you would be “presumed” to have corporate income!

Since all United States citizens are creations and subjects of the federal government (a public corporation), they are still property. For property (ie: corporations) to have legal existence, with civil rights, it must be done as an artificial entity, just like a corporation is legally considered a person with civil rights, but not inalienable rights. Since the federal government is also an artificial person (a corporation), it can only have jurisdiction over other artificial persons it has created. It has created the artificial person “U.S. citizen”, subject to its jurisdiction. You can contract for this corporate privilege and be protected by their corporate laws as one of your privileges as an employee of the corporation United States. And you will probably get lots of other free lunches (benefits) to boot!

Property cannot have inalienable rights. So all United States citizens are property (artificial ‘persons’), with their names spelled in all capital letters. These artificial entities are subject to different laws than you, their sovereign representative, and if they mess up, you do the time, or pay the fine, for them! Just like you can’t put a corporation in jail, but you can put their representatives, the corporate officers, in jail in their place.

Can you claim that you are NOT a sovereign American, so that you can collect some of the benefits of the subjects of the federal government’s U.S. citizens? Yes you can. And you already have.

Now let’s see which status you claim. First look at the spelling of your name on your driver’s license. Is it spelled in all caps, indicating an artificial corporate person? Then look at your social security card. Then look at your check book. Then look at your credit cards. Then look at the deed to your real estate if you own some. Then look at the title to your vehicle. Then look at your name in the heading of any court case you may have been in. Check the sworn statement you signed with your voter registration, or your gun registration. Look at ANY correspondence from the government. Look at your bills. These documents will tell you for sure who you really are. When you applied for Social Security, this artificial person U.S. citizen was created. Unknowingly, you contracted to be an artificial corporate person, not realizing that you created a new government employee. This is known as voluntary slavery. Involuntary slavery was forbidden by the 13th Amendment, but you agreed, by contract, to give up American Citizenship and inalienable rights, for U.S. citizenship with civil rights. Remember, the income tax is a corporate tax, so if you are a U.S. corporate citizen, then you are subject to a corporate excise tax on your income.

Do you get my point?

Now look at the mailing label for your tax return. Are you the artificial entity, United States citizen? If not, prove it. Make believe you are in court. Where is your identification that you are a sovereign American with inalienable rights? I have mine all filled out, I just have to get the money now to get it done. I will have them by the end of the month.  Can you show that you are an American, and not a U.S. citizen? What documents would you use? The only possible one is your birth certificate, and you used that to show that you are the representative/agent of the person on the SS card. But even those are issued with the name spelled in all caps, indicating an artificial person. In that case, who are you?

Pretty scary, huh?

When you are in court, would any judge tell you that you are NOT an ‘American’ Citizen and that the Constitution is not valid for you? No, they cannot let truth out!  But then they don’t have to because you are claiming to be a U.S. citizen. Because the TRUTH is:  As a sovereign, you have no legal standing in the corporate courts of this country, so you would not be in court in the first place!  Why is that? Because you, as a sovereign, are above the laws issued by the corporate federal government to regulate its own property. ALL courts in this country are statutory non-constitutional courts. ONLY the corporate employee can claim any corporate privileges in these courts. (your fictitious entity) BUT THERE IS WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS VERBAL CONTRACTING. IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING WHEN YOU GO TO COURT, IT IS VERY EASILY TO GET TRICKED INTO VERBAL CONTRACTING WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT YOU JUST DID. SO JUST REMEMBER THIS, SLAVE CITIZENS ANSWER QUESTIONS, SOVEREIGN FREE CITIZENS ASK QUESTIONS. When the judge says “do you understand” never say yes! If you say yes, you just contracted with him. You must ask questions, You say, I serve my rights under common law jurisdiction, and I waive the benefit. The judge will say ” I don’t know what that means. When you say that what are you telling me?” You say, I am not contracting, I do not consent! I am a living soul human of flesh and blood, I am NOT a corporation, I DO NOT CONSENT!” He will talk you in circles and you can also say something like this, YOU: “Are you operating under your oath today sir?” he will avoid the question like the plaque because he will be required to dismiss the case if he says yes. You want to always ask questions, don’t make statements


Are you operating under your oath today sir? (sir, meaning your honor)

Is it not true that your Oath states: that you solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that you will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon you as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help you God.”? 28 U.S. code 453?

Is it not true that under the laws of a state it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office?

Is it not true that there is no crime or cause of action, no causation, corpus delicti? — [in common law, no victim means no crime.  

Did you get a speeding ticket? Did you hurt someone from speeding? ok, so no victim means no crime. All these statues and codes is paper laws, not real laws, real laws is common sense stuff, easy to learn. Just stick to the facts.]

Is it not true then that through due process and Article lll that it is a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary?

THE 10 MAXIMS OF COMMERCIAL LAW 1. A workman is worthy of his hire. 2. All are equal under the law. 3. In commerce, truth is sovereign. 4. Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit. 5. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce. 6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes judgment in commerce. 7. A matter must be expressed to be resolved. 8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default. 9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility. 10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through (a) rebuttal by counter affidavit point by point; (b) resolution by a jury; or (c) payment or performance of the claim.

Jurisdiction can always be challenged on the grounds that the constitution states that ALL matters in LAW and EQUITY must be conducted in an Article III court. If this court is not an Article III court then the accused requests that the matter be transferred to an Article III court or dismissed with prejudice.Ask the judge if he has taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution – he has to say yes. If you ask the judge if he intends to conduct his duties in compliance with that oath, what can he possibly say but yes? The judge knows if the court is an Article III court, but he is hoping you will not understand this or how to force him to comply with his oath of office

So lets look again at 16th Amendment. Did they really need to pass a whole amendment, just to clarify the existing Constitution? Or was it really passed to apply to these new United States citizens? Let’s let the Treasury regulations tell us.

26 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 1.1-1 “Income tax on individuals. (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States . . . The tax imposed is upon taxable income . . .”

This Treasury Regulation explains who the income tax applies to. Does it apply to Citizens of the United States of America? No. Just to U.S. citizens, who are corporate employees, and their property.

Another interesting observation is that the 14th Amendment was certified on July 28, 1868. The day BEFORE, on July 27, Congress passed an Act called the Right of Expatriation. If Congress was going to create a new corporate citizen, then they also had to create a remedy to get out of it if you didn’t want to be a U.S. citizen. This was the way!


The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship, the United States citizen. This citizenship applies only to ‘persons subject to the jurisdiction’ of the federal government. All jurisdiction implies superiority of power. A ‘person’ is always an artificial corporate entity with its name spelled in all caps.

YOU are “presumed” to be a U.S. citizen, unless and until you can prove otherwise.

A Sovereign/Citizen of the United States of America (American Citizen), lives in one of the 50 sovereign states, and has inalienable rights secured by state and national constitutions.

The artificial person, U.S. citizen, is a legal fiction that has been created by the federal government, via the social security application, and is a corporate employee of the United States by virtue of being a U.S. citizen. He is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government and of the state government and subject to the corporate income tax.

The U.S. citizen is created property, created to raise revenue for the government, your employer. You have essentially contracted to be liable for the debts of your master, the federal government.

Are you feeling helpless and afraid now that you know the truth? I know I did until I saw this film, THRIVE: What On Earth Will It Take? As I was watching it, I was still feeling helpless and hopeless but then in the he offers a solution and provides hope. We can all be a part of the solution so keep watching till the end. You will find relief and some guidance as to what you can do.

His theory of a thriving society is basically SOVEREIGNTY!  When people think of sovereignty, they think a world with no rules, we are all free. NO! that is not what it means. Being sovereign means yes you are free from rulers but there are rules. One basic rule is, cause no bodily harm! In the movie THRIVE , this is what he says: “In a thriving society no one is allowed to violate anyone else except in self defense, Aikido is translated as “the way of unifying (with) life energy[1] or as “the way of harmonious spirit.” Governments are the single largest source of violence and suffering! We need to awaken and bring others to awaken before it’s too late!

Join the movement… Share this Blog!


Helpful link:

Become sovereign! Buy responsible! Stop the Bailouts of Banks & Corporations! Dismantle the Federal Reserve and withdrawal tax payers support to International banking such as the IMF, World Bank, and the Bank for International Settlements! Allow development of alternative currencies and independent banks. Refuse International Taxes!


Become informed, speak up and connect with others! Bank locally, when we move our money out of the big centralized banks and into the locally owned and credit unions, we de-fund the problem and fund the solution all in one move! Buy and invest responsibly, every dollar you spend sends a message! Join the movement to audit and end the Federal Reserve. Join the coalition to Keep the Internet Fair and Open. Support independent media, get your information from diverse sources and think about who is funding the information. Support Organic and NON GMO farming!!!! Join movements to bring about HONEST elections, require election and campaign finance reform. Advocate for renewable and free energy! Sign up for critical mass actions!   Use this resource to connect with others that want the same:


ME, plz like…

ME, plz like…

ME, plz like…

ME, plz like…

Good stuff

A must see video: