Do I allow the fire marshall in?

[scottinalaska]

Out here in "bush" Alaska we do things however we feel like it practically! Examples - no property taxes, no codes, no permits, no smogchecks, etc.

Two years ago an excellent friend opened a general store with groceries. Driving 5 hours to Anchorage to shop and back was prohibitive for most of us except every month or two, so this store is doing GREAT! He never took out a loan and built it as he had money.

Now some disgruntled bascially unhappy person(likely jealous) is "reporting" possible violations to different authoriites.

Background done, here is the crux:

John, owner, got a notice in the mail that he needs to fill out this form and include "stamped" plans of his structure so that the Fire Marshall can come inspect.

Sole-of-his-Boot stamps are what John will likely send back, but that would be dishonorable, so I am advising him to adjust his response!

The notice says it can require all sorts of things under the Authority of AS 18.70.080 and Alaska Admin Code 13 AAC 50.027

All easy to look up and read on the internet. It appears that if your structure is under their jurisdiciton, you must acquiese to their inspections and the IBC(International Building Code). And if it is more than a threeplex, you qualify! I hope I am missing something here.

Just a note that the building is built well, insulated and as most things around here, always completing and expanding.

Is this negative averment time?:

"I have not been shown any evidence that I am not sovereign to run my own business as protected under the US Constitution." ?

He sells no Tobacco, Alcohol, or Firearms.

Scott

I would think conditional acceptance with negative averment.

Also I think you will find that those admin codes do not apply to John. I just read something, I think it was on here, that a case said we do not have to let any inspector in and if he forces himself in it is tresspass.

Prof. Jim

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>Take a look at Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370. Also, any case that deals with "Private Property". You may be able to use that in your response.



"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 v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370”

-BT[/color]

scottinalaska,

For what my 2-cents is worth. I believe that the whole matter revolves around whether or not your friend has applied for and recieved a license or permit to run his store. If he has he falls under the jurisdiction and must acqueisce, as he has unwittingly given them permission to do anything thier codes require, by asking thier permission in the first place.

[cowboy]

Ditto to the above.



If in fact he has never 'applied' for a bldg.permit etc ...

then I would just ignore the letter. In fact the letter appears

to be a hook to get him under their jurisdiction ...

[Ice]

Challenge their jurisdiction by asking pertinent questions in regards to the protection and guarantees of the Constitution For the united States of America.

Hi -

Due to its length and limitations of this forum my response below is posted in two parts - below is part one.

I am new to this forum and I expect that what I have to offer will seem strange to all who post here but my personal experience (I am 70 YOA and was a "throw away baby" way back somewhere around mid 1934, I have lived through some 70 years without any information regarding my parents or when or where I was born so I do not have a birth certificate), is gained through my having lived "outside the system" all my life and I have learned a lot about how to get around these bureaucraps who try to force their way into our lives.

Below is a related item I wrote recently on understanding the Constitution and political status. The long and short of it is that the prohibition of involuntary servitude contained in the Thirteenth Amendment puts the burden on “them” to prove that you volunteered into their jurisdiction. I see in another post (above} a claim that if he got any license or permit to operate his store then he would have opped in - I disagree - if you are sovereign then how is it that you can ever submit yourself to the jurisdiction of those who serve you? Take Walt Disney as an example; if Walt forgot his special magnetic entry card to Disneyland one day and purchased a ticket to get into Disneyland would the fine print on the back of the admission ticket make Walt Disney subject to the rules of Disneyland promulgated by the Disneyland Chief of Security who was hired by Walt and who made the rules subject to Walt’s approval? I sure do hope that your answer is NO.

I was personally present in Federal Tax Court during an attempted prosecution of a tax protester friend (who had also been thrown away at birth) for failing to file back in 1970. They charged him with owing over $200K. The case was over in less than 5 minutes because they could not establish the guy was a citizen. They never asked him if he had a driver’s license or SS# or business license or anything other than 4 or 5 questions all of which pertained to when and where he was born, who his mother was and what was written on his birth certificate. All of his answers were the same - that at the time of his birth he had no ability to acquire personal knowledge regarding his origin and then he stated that they had to prove they had jurisdiction out of their own files - not out of his mouth; and that was over 30 years ago and they never ever bothered him again and he never ever filed a return. Since then he and I studied the documents I mention in the article below and came to the conclusions set forth therein. My point is - if your friend uses the issue of political status to challenge their jurisdiction they cannot prove he has volunteered into their jurisdiction unless he gives it to them out of his own mouth. I wouls never admit to being a US citizen or any kind of citizen because the very word "citizen" conveys an obligation of servitude.

Here below is the fruit of about 50 years of my continuous life experiences and research:

As important as understanding the Constitution may be there are a few related issues which must be grasped which are even more fundamental than the aforementioned. Before the "People of the United States" can correct any perceived problems, those who claim to be the "People of the United States" need to determine if in fact they actually are among those who hold the political status of the "People of the United States".

We continually hear and see (particularly in conservative writings and utterings) references that state that the United States is a republic. but no one (including the venerable Congressman Ron Paul) has any real clue as to what it is that defines a republic. In a recent radio interview I heard Ron Paul define a republic as a government where the representatives are elected by popular vote and where the minorities are protected from the majority - yea right - just like in the People's Republic of China and in the People's Democratic Republic of [North] Korea, and numerous other totalitarian regimes around the planet which include the word "republic" in the names of their countries. What Ron Paul defined was not a republic but rather, a somewhat garbled definition of the constitutional republic of the United States. The republic of the United States is more properly referred to as a constitutional republic because the protections afforded "minorities" in the United States exist because the protections are set forth in the constitution - not because the United States is a republic!!

I recall the constitution of the USSR read very similar to the Constitution of the United States except that each section setting forth a protected activity ended with the words "as determined by law" - thus they had a constitutional republic which allowed it to be run as a slave state dictatorship. The constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics allowed repression - it is all in how the constitution is written - which would be determined based on the purpose of the constitution - which would be controlled by those who wrote it - and does all that not make sense??

So what is it that defines a republic?? What definition fits both the People's Republic of China and North Korea and the United States? In China and Korea they have two political classes (1) those who make the rules and (2) those who obey the rules. And that is what defines a republic; so how does that definition work in the United States??

It might seem logical to start with the Constitution of/for the United States written in 1787 but in order to understand the Constitution it is first necessary to understand the relevant international political situation at that time and who the players were. Of course everyone knows that George Washington was one of the major players and is designated as the Father of our country. Not so well known is the man who convinced his fellow subjects of King George that they did not need a king - that they could rule themselves. This man did this single handedly in his small booklet, "Common Sense", this man, Thomas Paine, kept George Washington from being our first king. Thomas Paine, in my humble opinion, is the true father of our Country.

In repayment for Paine's efforts George Washington allowed Paine to rot and almost die in the French Bastille when all that was needed for Paine's immediate release was a letter from GW to the French government. The point here, for those who might have lost sight of it, is that GW, as an English Nobleman closely related to King George, GW was quite well convinced that the average individual was not capable of self government. Bear this in mind as you read what I present below:

The most relevant place to start examining is the Treaty of Peace of 1783, this is because prior to that treaty official open commerce between the Thirteen Colonies in Rebellion and France, Spain and England's own domestic industry, was stymied because England was the dominant military power and the other nations did not want to risk offending King George by openly trading with the said king's insurgents. Thus there was pressure from King George's "fellow" monarchs (and from the King's own subjects in England) for KG to settle things with his colonists in rebellion. In the resulting Treaty of 1783 (signed in Paris), King George devolved his sovereignty upon his former subjects (as explained in the opinion of the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Jay, in his opinion in the case Chisholm v. Georgia). In his opinion Chief Justice Jay opined that in the said Treaty King George made his former subjects equally sovereign to himself except [as far as KG was concerned] they had no one to govern except themselves.

Please understand that each individual former subject of King George who was present in the Thirteen Colonies at that time gained and held a political status, of sovereign status, equal to that of King George - such sovereign individuals were not politically subject to the authority or jurisdiction of any superior political entity. (John Jay was present in Paris as one of the representative of the Thirteen Colonies during the treaty negotiations and Jay was also one of the three authors of The Federalist Papers).

Continued in part two.

This is part two:

Here it is important to understand that this devolvement of the King's sovereignty upon his former subjects was limited to only those of his former subjects who were actually present in his former colonies during the rebellion of July 4, 1776, that is; King George had no political authority or ability (or desire) to devolve his sovereignty upon any persons who were subjects of the kings of Spain, France or Germany (there were subjects of these three countries who were present in the Thirteen Colonies during the insurrection but these (nor other non British aliens) could not be included among those upon whom King George had the authority to devolve his sovereignty so these French, Spanish or German aliens had no internationally recognized ability to form a new nation and for political (and other reasons), could not be included among those who were internationally politically legible to be of the Framers of the Constitution or be among those who were the Sovereign People of the United States).

So that gets us to the writing of the Constitution which, begins with the Preamble, (here it is of the utmost importance to understand that the Preamble is most certainly NOT mere window dressing!!). The purpose of the Preamble (which is self evident) is to explain the purpose of the Constitution; the Preamble (in relevant part), "We the People of the United States... in order to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do establish and ordain this Constitution for the United States of America."

Please note that the Framers did NOT write, "We the citizens of the United States..." And, directing your attention to the words, "...to secure the blessings of liberty..." please pay particular attention to the exclusionary phraseology of the words thereafter, "..to ourselves and our posterity...."; that is, (please note) that the Framers did NOT write, "to secure the blessings of liberty to every Johnny come lately who would like to come here for a free lunch...". The words, "...to ourselves and our posterity..." is clearly exclusionary phraseology and includes only the blood line posterity of those former subjects of King George who were here and participated in the revolution of July 4, 1776 and EXCLUDES everyone else, including those who are citizens of the United States and those who are of the posterity of citizens of the United States.

To help clarify this read the First Amendment, the opening words of this Amendment are all inclusive, that is, there is no limiting phraseology indicating that the first listed three protected rights are limited to any particular political class but half way through the wording changes limiting the application of the forth item to the People, "... and the People's right to redress shall not be impinged.". The right to redress is clearly limited and does NOT extend to everyone nor anyone other than the People of the United States as defined in the Preamble. Oh, you say, that is not what it means. I care not what you wish it to mean I care only for what the words clearly impart!! And if that does not convince you then consider the wording of the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment where it very clearly states that citizens of the United States SHALL NOT complain about [paying] the national debt; this statement comes after the First Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which clearly provides that all naturalized persons (citizens of the United States and the posterity thereof) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Bear in mind the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude:

As King George's act in signing the Treaty of 1783 made each individual member of the People of the United States individually sovereign and equal to King George and as citizens of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are denied the ability (the right) to complain about [paying] the national debt, then how in God's name do citizens of the United States imagine they are included among those who are of the sovereign People of the United States, for which the Constitution was/is designed to protect the blessings of liberty??

The United States is a republic with two political classes just like China and Korea, (1) the People of the United States (those who make the rules) and, (2) the citizens of the United States (those who obey the rules). The difference in the United States is that there is a Constitution in the United States which protects the majority (the citizens) from the minority (the People) and then there is additionally the all important and greatly overlooked Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude. In order for a person in the United States to become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States the person must volunteer into subject status; this is accomplished by volunteering to be a citizen of the United States. If you believe being born in the United States automatically makes a person a citizen thereof then you need a refresher on English grammar and punctuation.

The two most overlooked words in the opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are the words, "or" and the word, "and". The word "or" means one or the other and the word "and" makes the words following a required condition before citizenship applies. The phrase, "..., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..." is an explanatory clause. Explanatory clauses neither add nor subtract from a writing in which they are included.

The Amendment applies to two classes, (1) those born and (2) those naturalized. By considering the wording of each separately the wording would be, in reverse order, addressing naturalized first, "All persons naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside." The explanatory clause is omitted as unnecessarily redundant as voluntary subjugation to the jurisdiction thereof is inherent in the voluntary act of naturalization, while on the other hand the explanatory clause is required when the wording is read addressing those born, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The explanatory clause makes it abundantly clear that not all persons born in the United States are thereby, automatically subject to its jurisdiction. This certainly applies to a child born of a foreign diplomat assigned to a foreign embassy but it also applies to children born of the sovereign People of the United States.

In order to understand the opening (citizenship) clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which (paraphrased), provides, " All persons born in the United States of parents previously naturalized (or of the posterity thereof), are, under international custom and practice, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, when such offspring thereafter, in applying for their driver's license, voluntarily (and proudly) present their birth certificate (which "proves" they are NOT of the posterity of the People of the Preamble) at age 16 and proudly state in their DL application that they are a citizen of the United States (and thank you for volunteering to pay what the People determine is your fair share of the national debt)".

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing at all wrong with being a citizen of the United States, I just contend it is better to be of the People of the United States so that I may exercise my right to redress protected in the First Amendment.

Any person who appears to be of Anglo Saxon decent can claim to be of the People of the United States but in order to do so that such person cannot claim a birth certificate which leads back to an antecedent's naturalization nor claim to be a citizen of the United States. If a person previously claimed a birth certificate such person was obviously making such claim based on misinformation as no person can remember the date or place of his/her birth not can any person have any personal knowledge as to who his/her parents were/are. There is a similar argument for persons of African decent as such persons antecedents were brought here in chains and were never naturalized, thus they did not swear an allegiance to the United States, and are not automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof by birth, I care not what any black robed tyrant may opine - the wording of the references I recite are clear and unambiguous.

In view of the foregoing, what is it about the Constitution that needs to be changed (other than a provision regarding/protecting jury nullification and the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment and a clause limiting all politicians to one term and Congress to one 30 day session per year)? And, is it understood that the United States is operating under the rules of bankruptcy? When a corporation is in receivership under and operated in bankruptcy the receivers have no obligation to adhere to its incorporating documents. The People of the United States would not be included in the assets of the United States as would be citizens of the United States.

Cheers,

Yadu

[weishaupt1776]

Great stuff, I may need to use some of that stuff in my petition to a 3 judge court pretty soon

[RickA]

Yadu:
Interesting material.

In view of the foregoing, what is it about the Constitution that needs to be changed (other than a provision regarding/protecting jury nullification and the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment and a clause limiting all politicians to one term and Congress to one 30 day session per year)?

As for the above question, I'm a little slow on the uptake, would anyone care address that question?

Thanks