Documentation backing Soverign Status?

[EnSabahNur]

Oooooooo, this is my favorite...everyone should memorize this :



<font color=red>The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and preserved rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. City of Dallas et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex-1922).[/color]

[Akira]

Hi All,

I was talking with a retired state judge some months ago about family matters court. He told me (and I quote):

"Once a year, all of the judges in the State of Maine have an extremely clandestine meeting with the Department of Humans services, where we are instructed how we are expected to rule in cases regarding Human Services clientele."

"Judges in this state come up for review every seven years. If the judge in question has 'rocked the boat' in any manner, he will not be reappointed at the end of his term. It's not a formal affair. The governor simply decides whether you will be reappointed or not."

He told me much more than this, but, like Ilima, I'm just going to leave it at that... I do wish I had been better informed when the opportunity had presented itself..

It would appear, there are a few honest judges, still out there, that are as frustrated as we are, with our present circumstance.

[QUOTE by EnSabahNur]All irrelavent..... [/quote] I agree...

When I am in court, I always make a point to say:

"your law says... your statute number such and such says... your rules of civil procedure say..."

I endeavour to not give them anything. To do otherwise, would be to deny my stance as a sovereign, and the many blessings of my Father.

(sorry for the off topic comments)

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Jerseee]

I am in agreement with Ensabahnur and KT.

Things are just merely stated for clarity--not for establishing a god given right by someone on equal footing as yourself.

Violence is all they know and understand. They are still talking about how they got their asses whipped in Vietnam and look how they treated our fighting forces. they don't care about the vet, all they can remember is the asswhipping they got. Get from in front of the TV.

[sadie]

I think the judge was providing a procedural way to present the judicial notice of sovreign status for the record.

In other words if done this way there would be no question, interpretation, opinion. It would be right in their face and they couldn't play the ignorance game.

Just heard about a book by a retired judge - Andrew Napolitano. Will search on this and see what I can find.

[sadie]

Here's a link to his book

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=41118

7 FAM 1121.2-2 Court Decisions

d. In Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U.S. 1 (1904), the Supreme Court referred to its earlier finding that:

...the nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they pass, subject to the right of election on their part to retain their former nationality by removal or otherwise, as may be provided... (Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)).

A narrow path...

Section 302 of the Covenant my intention to become a national but not a citizen of the United States


Folks:

I think that I would head over in this neck of the woods to get the citizenship issue finally overcome. It is my understanding that there is already an office in operation for Protecting our Powers (7 FAM 1000).

Tell me all your thoughts...???

[mikah2k]

Originally Posted by Ilima

I had the oppurtunity to speak with a retired federal judge a couple of weeks ago, and he had something interesting to say. I however, have not been able to go into detail with him on what to look for. Anyway, what he said was that if a person is claiming soverign, there are three things that a person should have attached to their Declaration of Soverignty. They were a passage from the Declaration of Independence and two documents that were drafted about the time of the drafting of the Constitution. He could not remember the exact documents, but said that these items would aid a soverign in court.

With re to the Declaration of Independence I am thinking it is this passage:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.



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 of 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.



As for the other two passages, I am uncertain. I did however find the following passage in Article IV of the Articles of Confederation which preceeded the Constitution which states:

"the free inhabitants of each of these States... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States;"



I'm not sure. But its some food for thought. Anyone with ideas on what this retired judge was talking about?

I found something in Strategic Withdrawal page 62 [under the "LICENSE = PERMISSION" paragraph] that pertains.

The first universal principle we cited in this book is that the creature owes its servitude to the creator. The government was created by the Constitution and owes its servitude to the Constitution. Mankind was created by God and we owe our servitude to God. The interface that the Sovereign uses between himself and the government is the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. There is no way that these three documents/books can give us permission to harm anyone. License means permission to do that which would otherwise be unlawful, i.e., - to harm someone. What kind of an upside-down view of the world do we have when we go to the servant of our servant to request license to do what we already have a God given right to do, and harms no one? Once we sign an application for a license, we create the presumption that we are under legal disability, that the state is our master, and that we are the slaves. When the state then begins to treat us like slaves, it is only because we have given them written authorization to do so.

[mnchicago]

You do NOT have to cite anything in Court other
than who you are. They cannot dispute who you say
you are or what rights you have, otherwise they are
directly challenging the creator as to the rights
bestowed upon you when you were born. Ask the judge
if he is challenging the Jurisdiction of your creator.


Hold on, EnSabahNur. You have to be VERY careful about
what you say on court, and VERY specific.

It is my impression that this topic revolves around
jurisdiction, sovereign Citizen v "United States" citizen,
as everyone is (the latter) in today's statutory courts.

I cannot address your comment at the moment. I have
already been on this cite too long, today, and have
other things to which I must attend, but I'll be back.

[weishaupt1776]

People downplay having documentation and just think that you can wait till the last minute and claim "I am a sovereign lumberjack on the land" on a brief in the midst of the court action or perhaps say how big, bad and sovereign you are in court without having first having established a priori notice documenting your communications with the proper agencies regarding status issues.

Not only is notice important, but the substance of your challenge in law rebutting any 14th Amndmt presumption and other matters regarding laws governing Nationality is equally important.

Unfortunately, Mr. Brushears fails to address necessary points of law in order to really clobber these suckers in a default at law. His procedural aspects are O.K., but he is lacking in the substantive area big time.

If documentation is not important, try asking some living people who lived in Nazi Germany and had to show their status to the Gestapo in order to avoid getting gassed.

After you ponder that, then ask yourself if whether or not The German Brotherhood of Death Society in America (Skull & Bones) who has infiltrated the Government is pushing Nazi-esque policy through the government.

I get absolutely no financial interest in this, and I can attest that the most sound process regarding status documentation is administered by LB Bork of pacinlaw.org. Again, the paperwork is only as good as you can intelligently defend it. This stuff only proves your standing as a State National in a court or admin proceeding and does not "majically remove you" or "kill the wabbit"

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

I get absolutely no financial interest in this, and I can attest that the most sound process regarding status documentation is administered by LB Bork of pacinlaw.org. Again, the paperwork is only as good as you can intelligently defend it. This stuff only proves your standing as a State National in a court or admin proceeding and does not "majically remove you" or "kill the wabbit"

LB must be holding a copyright on the rights ordained by God; afterall, he is selling the information, and obviously God did not see fit to provide a written text in modern language to aid all that would be interested. So seemingly, God did not intend that all should be sovereign in the general meaning of the term, ie., "sovereigns with no subjects".

Jerry