guidance

[Market Trader]

So I have been a member for a while just lurking and reading.
I have been to PAC and been deprogramed, contacted them and waiting on a response.

I am a business man and have the company incorporated, voted , birth cert,dl ssn ,married etc.. the normal plugged person if you will.

I desire the unplugging of my status and the conversion to a nationalist but where does one find the steps and knowledge to move forward?

Does anyone know if pac does this?

Also what can be expected from this? what will happen to my company,wife, kids, income,cars,home etc...
How will i get frn's and how can i use them?

Why does everyone i talk to personally feel like i am loosing my mind for believing there is god given freedom and rights? Even my own pasture from the church thinks i am doing something that could hurt my well being..

Sorry for asking too many ignorant questions

[weishaupt1776]

contact LB Bork lb<@>pacinlaw<dot>org

you really should read the new 2007 red amendment so that you understand how to intelligetly defend yourself

LB has thestatus correction process nailed

[Akira-]

Even my own pasture from the church thinks i am doing something that could hurt my well being..

There's no way around it... You're going to have to educate them.

Simply say:
"Don't accept a word I say at face value. Look it up for yourself and make your own decisions.. I'm happy to provide sources."

Download Pastor Massad's discussion on 501c3 churches on truth radio
http://www.truthradio.com/Audio/Massad501C3.mp3
(right click - "save target as")

burn it to cd and give it to your pastor.


A question you might ask of your friends:

So, we're all US citizens right?

But the US citizenship wasn't created until 1868, via the 14th amendment.

What class of citizen existed before 1868?


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by Akira

But the US citizenship wasn't created until 1868, via the 14th amendment.

Not true, US citizenship existed for those living within the jurisdiction of the US, i.e. the District of Columbia and the territories, since the adoption of the constitution. The 14th amendment merely provided citizenship to those whose previous condition barred such, not only by slavery but by race as well.

White citizens born in one of the several states are state Citizens who possess unalienable rights. Minorities, per the constitution, are 14th amendment Citizens who possess only civil rights.

gldskr

[Akira-]

A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States. - Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. - Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)

... [F]or it is certain, that in the sense in which the word "Citizen" is used in the federal Constitution, "Citizen of each State," and "Citizen of the United States," are convertible terms; they mean the same thing; for "the Citizens of each State are entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," and Citizens of the United States" are, of course, Citizens of all the United States. 44 Maine 518 (1859), (Hathaway, J. dissenting)


As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the Conventions of nine States that established and created the United States, it is obvious there could not then have existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the United States, or who possessed the Presidential qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United States. The United States in these provisions, means the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a citizen of one of said States at the time of such ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications, according to the true meaning of the Constitution. - People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)

[weishaupt1776]

A unified Federal citizenship emanating out of D.C. and conferred upon all Americans in a blanket fashion was never "sealed" until the 14th Amdmt

The term "citizen of the U.S." took on a whole 'nuther meaning fer sher

[gldskr]

The following quote is authored by Dave Champion at http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php

In the Constitution of the United States, the phrase "Citizen of the United States" appears. Because this phrase appears within a Constitution, not a statute, the meaning of the phrase is determined by the meaning intended by those who wrote and signed the Constitution. If the intended meaning is manifest, there is no power on earth, including that of a criminal in a black robe, which can alter the meaning of the phrase. The meaning of the phrase "Citizen of the United States" is well understood. That phrase is shorthand for the sentence, "All the Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called "states"] that are a party to this Constitution". The important element that you should understand is that the "Citizen of the United States" spoken of in the Constitution of the United States is more properly and accurately a Citizen of the state in which he lives. The phrase "Citizen of the United States" is actually a euphemism used for convenience and brevity, and not a legal title.

Akira

The cites you reference clearly describe the euphemistic nature of the phrase "Citizen of the United States", but more importantly show that state citizenship is the lawful antecedent to federal citizenship, which correspondingly, lacks a lawful authority.

What status, other than federal, is afforded to those citizens who were born of parents who were not state Citizens in D.C. or the territories prior to 1868?

Where in the constitution is Congress delegated the authority to declare a state Citizen a "Citizen of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction thereof."?

Originally Posted by weis

A unified Federal citizenship emanating out of D.C. and conferred upon all Americans in a blanket fashion was never "sealed" until the 14th Amdmt

The term "citizen of the U.S." took on a whole 'nuther meaning fer sher

If one believes that Congress had the power to do such a thing one may come to such a conclusion. That Congress had/has no such power renders the conclusion erroneous.

gldskr

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by gldskr

If one believes that Congress had the power to do such a thing one may come to such a conclusion. That Congress had/has no such power renders the conclusion erroneous.

gldskr

How much study have you put into "Rebuttable Presumptions" ?

Sec 1 of Article XIV presumes that you are such a Fed Citizen regardless of how "lawful" or "unlawful" the ratification was

Look up "defacto" & "defacto gov't" in your Black's and study it

Therefore they do not have to "prove that you are a 14th amndmt U.S. Citizen"

There is a rebuttable presumption set forth which now places the onus back on you

Once you provide competent evidence that you are not part of the defacto body politic in BOTH Law (substance) & in administration (procedure) - then only will they have the burden

If you refuse to get that, then have fun being a presumed enemy against your dejure republic pursuant to sec 2 of the 14th Amdmt

Golddude, do you have in your wallet a drivers' license ?

___Yes ___NO

[gldskr]

weis

You will of course, believe that which you believe. Belief does not always equate to fact or truth, however.

If L.B. Bork's theory were to hold true, that would mean that the People were a party to the constitution. This, of course, is not the case as the constitution was the result of an agreement between the several states to form an entity called the United States, whereas they delegated specific powers in order to better serve their mutual interests. The People still retained their unalienable rights and were left to govern themselves.

From a constitutional standpoint, the feds may make presumptions all day long which I would have no obligation to rebut since the constitution does not apply to me. The burden would fall upon the states.

The constitution grants me no rights since my rights existed antecedent to it. It is, however, empowered to defend my rights which I will gladly accept.

Perhaps you can answer the question I posed to Akira; From where does the Congress obtain the authority to alter my status as a state Citizen? In other words, where is Congress's authority to determine that I am a 14th Amendment citizen?

I also have a DL for those occassions when I engage in commercial activity upon the hifgways. They are few and far between.

gldskr

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by gldskr

weis

You will of course, believe that which you believe. Belief does not always equate to fact or truth, however.

Oh Boy. A philosophical intro declaration

Originally Posted by gldskr

weis

If L.B. Bork's theory were to hold true, that would mean that the People were a party to the constitution.

How does The State Nationality Premise show that people are a party to the Constitution ?

What part of "L.B. Bork's theory shows that & How?

Or are you just making declarations ?

The 14th Amdmt presumes that people are a party, when they are not sposda be.

There are invisible contracts such as the BC, SS#, DL,
Bank account, and yes - an implied "citizenship" contract

State Nationals lay an admin foundation showing that we are indeed not a party to the defacto body politic or any constitution

Originally Posted by gldskr

Perhaps you can answer the question I posed to Akira; From where does the Congress obtain the authority to alter my status as a state Citizen? In other words, where is Congress's authority to determine that I am a 14th Amendment citizen?

The answer is that they never have had it and that's the problem

I have a 20 page brief showing exactly how and why that is totally unauthorized pursuant to constitutionally repugnant war powers

However, how are you going to intelligently defend yourself when they come a knockin' ?

How are you going to get alloidal title & not be liable for property tax ?


They have trained their dogs to sniff you out that you are a U.S. Citizen and therefore a subject. There is a hardcore presumption that you are a subject

Originally Posted by Excerpt from LB BORK's Are You Sui Juris ?

Under principles of Common Law, it should also be understood that silence will regard
one’s status to be that of a de facto citizen of the United States (of America). Hence, as a
person being a subject of the new political system and receiver of its benefits. . . he is
subject to Income Tax. Accordingly, the below cannot be evidenced enough:
• Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his
consent. But if he does not dissent, he will be considered as assenting.
• Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum. He who receives
the benefit should also bear the disadvantage

gldskr, they are going to hammer you and your family at common law as demonstrated above and at equity because you have agreed to be presumed a party to their defacto matrix by doing nothing about it.

Keep listening to Eric Williams and The Flynn's who say "I know who I am - I don't have to do anything about it - I'm Super Duper Sovereign Man - I can fly and be free"

I also have a DL for those occassions when I engage in commercial activity upon the hifgways. They are few and far between.

Enjoy your national ID card and keep inviting the presumption that you are a U.S. National pursuant to 8 USC 1101 definitions and @ 1481

Originally Posted by gldskr

The People still retained their unalienable rights and were left to govern themselves.

If you really did the research, you'd see that "The people" were the ones who drafted the U.S. Constitution.

Originally Posted by gldskr

From a constitutional standpoint, the feds may make presumptions all day long which I would have no obligation to rebut since the constitution does not apply to me. The burden would fall upon the states.

And they love the fact that you accept their presumption

• Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. But if he does not dissent, he will be considered as assenting.

You are presumed to be receiving federal benefits by not objecting to the SSN "benefit" or an FDIC bank account, or the "benefit" of "u.S. Citizenship

It's such a shame that you don't want any help

You have it all figured out I see

Keep being an enemy of your state republic by not doing anything about it

It's O.K gldskr, you don't have to do any admin process regarding insurgent status presumptions. Just stand on "who you are", look in the mirror and say "I am one of the People - - I KNOW who I am - - that's right, we bad, we bad . . . "