mind blower - I wrote something and got a response and it confuses the hell out of me

[orwinz]

I wrote this

http://orwinz.com/politicalexpose.htm



I was referred to this

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/queen.htm



Responses to my writing:

1.) "You have to understand that Great Britain,(Article six Section one) the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you."



2.) You cannot sue a government official... for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why ? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user of your Masters property!"



This confuses me, especially the link I was refered to.

[wirlwind]

I read throught the whole article and there were some valid points that the author made. There were some things that I believe, and some things that are still confusing to me, and I don't want to believe, but after seeing the way that people's rights are trampled every single day, and seeing how little power the average man has to run his own life, I don't know. It makes The Matrix more and more believeable. He had a whole list of other sites that I may go back and look at when I have some more time.



Donna

as ive written in the thread "kgod, got a question for ya", does it really matter if they trample on your constitutional rights? name one treaty with native americans that is wasnt broken? and treaties are supreme law also. they are devils and dont care what you put in their face, thats why you got a law that contradicts one, a law that contradicts that, case law that says one the car is blue, case law that says that exact same car is purple. you may quote case law and law in court just to make a point because thats all you gonna gain. people came to this forum because they got tired of redemption "not working" and preach using the law in court. well, that dont work either, thats THE ORIGINAL REASON redemption became so attractive to people. if the law worked, redemption wouldnt have sprung up overnight like it did and some of the other patriot community remedies. you can quote one thousand reasons why land patents suppose to work and the judge and sheriff throws your butt on the street as business as usual. they arent afraid of anything but losing money out of their personal pockets and they dont fear that because they know that title 42 lawsuits and crap is just that crap, and they even have the audacity to brag that you cannot sue them. People wake up. ived used the court for the last time with that petitioning ****. f... that. im going straight contract and going afta their equity. roger elwick , winston strout and the others are correct. if you dont be man enough to step up and take their **** went they coming after yours, you aint gotta chance.

[seeker]

kg;



sounds like you're angry, frustrated and just plain mad. I can identify. Are we the silent majority? Knowing the system is flawed;that there is no Justice, in the "justice system" ; that all courts should let the lady put a cash register on one side of that scale she's holding and a gun on the other. Brutality, force and coercion should replace the "protect and serve" motto for the law enforment agencies.



Keep a cool head man. You are an intelligent being an knowing about the fraud and deception is half the fight. Reseach, sharing and perfecting the process is the next step. I undestand your frustration, and share it, as you and I have talked about in the past. Hopefully others will begin to raise their heads and clear their minds and realize things are not what they seem nor are they safe and protected like the days of old.



I was watching a show the other day that spoke of "take back the night" movements -- we need to take back our country -- day and night -- the courts, our laws, our right of self preservantion and protection.



Just my thoughts -- angry and otherwise!



Seeker

[Ice]

You are only a slave if you want to believe that kinda crap that is being spouted more frequently.



If you are not a party to the constitution : how is it that the People are Sovereign over the government? Think about it like this: The constitution is a "restrictive" contract. It prohibits the government. You, on the other hand, cannot be restricted because you are Sovereign.



You are not a slave, you are a KING (or Queen).



Ice

[b][color=green]Orwinz,



You're close, but no cigar.



To understand why you "can't" sue the gubmit, read "Invisible Contracts" by George Mercier available at http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mercier/. The gist of it is that we have all become entangled with CORPORATE USA through adhesion contracts of which most are unaware.



With respect to the Constitution, I would point you towards Lysander Spooner and his work "The Constitution of No Authority". Here is a taste from that work:



THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY

by Lysander Spooner (condensed and edited)



Who is Bound by the Pretended "Constitution?"

The "constitution" (pretended) has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the pretended "constitution," so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument [the pretended "constitution"] does not purport to be an agreement between anybody but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.

Let us see. Its language is:



"We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the pretended "United States"), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."



It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor that they imagined they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their "posterity," as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.



Legally speaking, therefore, there is nothing in the pretended "constitution" that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it. If, then, those who established the pretended "constitution," had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.



Note how the last words in Spooner's work, "...by voting, and paying taxes.", ties in nicely with Mercier's work.

[Jerseee]

Folks,



Nothing can be done without your consent. Evil propsers when good folks do nothing.



Listen or read Malcom X's speech on revolution and the turth will unfold right before your eyes.

[wirlwind]

I can undersyand and sympathize with a lot of the anger an frustration that has been expressed in this thread. And I really don't know what the answers are. The only thing that I do know, is that I feel so lost sometimes, and that I don't have any recourse through the courts, or anything else. It is as if there are an elite group of pond scum-sucking leaches (our lawyers, judges and judicial system) that do whatever they want, and get away with it. We have no laws anymore except those that THEY decide to abide by, and they make those up as they go. They don't even try to justify them anymore. And no one ever holds them accountable. And mercy to the one that would try to. Ice, Jerseee,- you keep saying that we are kings and queens- but how do we conduct ourselves that way, when everyone else recognizes us as slaves and subjects? We are trying to do this thing in the courts, and we are losing the battle right and left. Debating all these issues on these forums bring a lot of ideas, but it is going to take more than ideas to bring about change and reform. Ice has said before to bring it about in the voting booth. Well the ones that have effectively perfected their redemption no longer vote. So how is that to be accomplished. It is time that we started a more organized way of reforming things. We The People has been trying to do something along that line, and I haven't followed that in a while. We need people with ideas like I see here on Sui Juris that are willing to run for office, and infiltrate the lawmakers dens. We can't do that if we perfect our redemption (I don't think that works either) I don't hear of many successes- with redemption or with the law! Could it be that we are the ones who are delusional, and that what we believe is the fiction? I just feel that it is going to take more than one case at a time in the courtrooms. We need to have a louder voice so that the PEOPLE of this country will hear us, and se the truth. On lawworks, Clyde Hyde is getting ready to do a class action lawsuit in Washington DC to bring the tax court officials to be held accountable for the justice that has been denied many people that have appeared in tax courts and have been done successful defaults which were denied. It is time to mutiny and take back our courts, and legal system and our country.

Sorry for the negativity. I'm just trying to find some answers.



Donna

[Jerseee]

Donna,



Venting sometimes helps. Its therapy.



Look, you know to choose your battles wisely. Remember this: when hope is extinguished--desparation is created.



If you do not believe that you are the source of all wealth and law--then alot of problems happen.



This whole thing starts in your mind and ends in your mind. Things are manifested through energy that you put out. Everything from life itself to commerce.



Don't get me twisted--I have struggles just as all here do--however, if I do not covet such things and let them have their debts--then there is my freedom.



For example, I have a situation with a creditor and they have been deleted from the credit report--but they have garnished my commercial person's wages. Recourse is mine but it takes time since teh powers that be knows that we are not patient people anymore.



I let their wickedness trap them--I do not forcefully try to induce them into something. I gather my proof and wait for more treachery. I establish documents and standards before a sitatuion arises. This way there is time to refute my proclamations. If it is not refuted--then when I submit it--it can't be ignored as time has past to refute it.



If you cannot confirm or deny anything--whom is to prove their claim against you? The accusor.



Donna, I don't want this to sound or read it is as simple as that--of course it is not. That is why I encourage study and reading. Thinking outside the box of what you've been taught helps you to see the madness.



Stay strong--this is your test.

[EnSabahNur]

Jerseee,



Could you not file a superior claim against your commercial person's income, after all, you are providing the labor for that income, you should also have first claim to it over a creditor, they can have what is left over after your...say......10 Billion dollar private contract is satisfied. Just curious. I'm a contractor and I keep NO bank accounts, haha, so I don't have to worry about this. When I get garnish letters for my company to garnish my commercial person, I choose to NOT get involved in the dispute as I have it on good authority that I have superior claim to the money over anybody/anything else. LOL



Three cheers for being Self Employed.....HIp Hip.....