Documentation backing Soverign Status?

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?

well, maybe we have to look up documents that were written up around the time of the constitution like that judge said?http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/18th.htm

[KaosTheory]

Sounds like the judge got hold of some good reefer. He is basically saying that if you don't have your papers in order then you are someone else's property.



If judges and attorneys won't follow the written laws and statutes in open court, why whould they all of the sudden just dismiss your case because you drafted your own declaration of independence?



Did the British just roll over when their cash cow colonies decided to become independent? Hmmm nope. Human's are violent by nature. You can't draw up a magical peice of paper and turn violent people into reasonable peace loving souls. You gotta have fire power to back up your words. Or you have to, some how, wake up the sleeping masses and get them to stop watching tv long enough to realize there is something wrong here in "free" America.



I'd like to ask that judge a few questions heh heh....

[Raptor13x]

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in 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 vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopkins (118 US 356).



“No action can be taken against a sovereign in the non-constitutional courts of either the United states or the state courts and any such action is considered the crime of Barratry. Barratry is an offense at common law.” State vs Batson, 17 S.E. 2d 511, 512, 513.

What's interesting is that the Articles of Confederation recognizes two separate entities. Free inhabitants and free citizens. I think what this judge was trying to say was that judges need to be given notice that you know who you are and who they are, and that the courts are acting under the color of law and not in accordance to their oaths. He did mention that these far reaching concepts aid in proving the soverign status. And if anyone has been in court you will know that they do not at all operate in honor. This judge said that the courts are acting insanely, and until they are given their insanity papers they will continue to do so.

[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b]Ilima, that is some exciting stuff Is there a way to probe any further w/out coming off too pushy?

Maybe you could ask him to ask some other retired judges for you and see. Tell him it's dealing with a diversity of citizenship issue or something.

Only challenge is that I do not know this judge personally and he is currently not available due to his personal circumstances. We'll just leave it at that, but it would be interesting to know exactly what he was talking about. I hope to be able to hook up with him when he does become available, and find out further what passages he ment. Until then it is research and speculation. I will keep you all updated when I get more information. If anyone has ideas as to what this retired judge was speaking of, or some thoughts, it would be greatly appreciated. I think this might help alot of people with the citizenship and soverign issue.

[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b]I amended my declaration of domicile & filed it today. Man, I loaded that sucker up on one page in 10 point font. Anyway, Clyde Hyde at lawwork has a declaration of status that has similair overtones to which you speak of.

[KaosTheory]

Weis,



How long before you find out if they are going to give you grief about it? Send me an email of it. I'd like to see what you came up with.

[EnSabahNur]

All irrelavent. Your rights as a Sovereign were given to you by endowment of the creator, and merely re-affirmed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those documents do NOT give you those rights, but only states what is already so old and well established that they need not be written.



Who wants the Supreme Court cite for that?



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.