[hooded50]

Folks, your own Supreme Court of the united States of America has differentiated between the term "person" and "sovereign".

First, Supreme Court admitted that "the people" are all "sovereigns":

"…[i]n our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356 [emphasis mine]

“…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.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419 [emphasis mine]

Then, Supreme Court said that the legal definition of the word "person" not only does not include the "sovereign", but that the legal definition of "person" actually excludes the "sovereign":

"And the Government admits that often the word 'person' is used in such a sense as not to include the sovereign but urges that where, as in the present instance, its wider application is consistent with, and tends to effectuate, the public policy evidenced by the statute, the term should be held to embrace the Government." United States v Cooper Corp., 318 US 600 [emphasis mine]

"Since in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." United States v. Fox, 94 USS 315 [emphasis mine]

"[i]n common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 [emphasis mine]

Then, Supreme Court said that a "statute" cannot be applied to a sovereign, unless the statute contains express words to that effect:

"There is an old and well-known rule that statutes which in general terms divest pre-existing rights or privileges will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect….In common usage that term [person] does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258 [emphasis mine]

Then, Supreme Court held that a "sovereign" is exempt from suit:

"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 [emphasis mine]

"Sovereignty, itself, is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law…sovereignty itself remains with the people…." Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356 [emphasis mine]

“…it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419

Then, Supreme Court admitted that the "state" is an 'artificial person', and that those who are capable of thinking, acting, and speaking are not "persons", but "men":

“I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that States and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that [man’s] creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker…A State, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance..... Let a State be considered as subordinate to the people….It is an artificial person…In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men…” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419

Those who want to declare yourself to be a "person" - help yourself.

I particularly enjoy my sovereignty, especially when you note that every statute in existence particularly states that it applies to a "person" ("no person shall", "any person who", etc) and that not ONE statute, federal, state, or local, contains explicit wording that it applies to a sovereign.

I will not declare myself to be a "person". I have noted in my own personal experience that when you present these facts to the court, the judges run for the hills.

I've personally had three judges permanently recuse themselves from any matter involving me, another judge who "retired" rather than answer my questions under oath, and one judge who simply refused to take any action against me. It could be coincidence, but I'd say this is some pretty powerful evidence against judges and lawyers who are proceeding against sovereigns knowing that they don't have the jurisdiction to do so. . . . . . .

GOD IS GOOD!