Alternative I.D.

[dadmoonbunny]

Yes, please keep this thread going. It has already answered questions.

[Jerseee]

Weis,

This is what I was talking about in the other thread. When do you need to have them recognize you? It should be the other way around. When you are asking them to do something to recognize your status---you are in a subservient role. There are already laws that state all of this--why go through all of this to effectuate what is already done?

This is taking on a burden of proof that does not lie with the sovereign--it lies with the accusor, the presumptor in this case. Prove your presumption first, there is no need for me to rebut a presumption---a fact is different---a presumption is just that.....a presumption.

Furthermore, you are accepting certain things when you are doing this. You are accepting that YOU have a driver's license, a social security number and whatnot. You do not own any of these things, this is why they can take them away when they want. Also, you do not have to use them if you don't want to. I truly believe this process is misleading folks. The intention may be a good one but, doing all of this stuff seems unneccessary when all you have to do is apply the law.

Good luck with this.

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

One must have their state nationality declared by a formal recognition by the right agencies first.

How can you declare your state nationality if you haven't thouroughly rebutted the U.S. citizen presumption,

The status issue must be addressed PRIOR to an apostilled I.D. doc

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Weis,

This is what I was talking about in the other thread. When do you need to have them recognize you? It should be the other way around. When you are asking them to do something to recognize your status---you are in a subservient role.

Incorrect assumption
The documentation in no way begs, asks, or inquires. It involves a self directed naturalzation, declaration, refusal and cancellation.
You are not asking them to do anything.
I am going to assume that you didn't read the Nationality premise in the expat tutorial thread.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

There are already laws that state all of this--why go through all of this to effectuate what is already done?

[b]expatriation is a right in the statutes at large. The right to choose one's nationality is an inherent natural right. You are making formal public notice of it -- IN LAW.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

This is taking on a burden of proof that does not lie with the sovereign--

Your misunderstanding what's going on.
This is building an admin record declaring who you are PRIOR to any action.
Should you be a defendant, the BoP is on them to rebut you due to the mountainous admin record you have established

Originally Posted by Jerseee

I truly believe this process is misleading folks. The intention may be a good one but, doing all of this stuff seems unneccessary when all you have to do is apply the law.

Good luck with this.

You haven't really researched this enough to make the determination that this is misleading folks.
The results are that people are getting out of Federal Pens because of this stuff, traveling in airports from place to place WITH THEIR OWN SELF MADE DOCUMENTATION WHICH THEY DIDN"T ASK FOR, getting pulled over and not harrassed.

I believe that you are making broad brushed assumptions which are based on general concepts without any real specific address regarding state nationality.

When people start getting hammered on the National I.D. card and/or going to jail because of refusal you will be thinking differently.

[seeker]

I guess I been hangin' with HB too much, but it is my thought that if we are Sovereign, we do not have to run through the BB hoops to 'prove/disprove it' we just need to TELL them. In essence -- Having just become aware that I AM THE SOVEREIGN, that I HAVE CREATED the government, that I DICTATE it's power and rights, not the opposite, I hereby RE-AFFIRM those Sovereign rights and re-affirm YOUR place within that dictate.

Now, the Apostille with the declaration of SEEKER DOMAIN and INHABITANTS tells BB that I have made a declaration of such and that I am notifying the 'locals' that I am here. As a diplomat from The Country of Seeker, I am giving notice that I am here, and here are my credentials -- which are apostilled and recognized in all Hague Convention countries -- ensuring that I may do the same in any of those countries. My
Consulate is where I am, and I am not subject to the laws, rules or dictates of the government within which I choose to habitate, I bring My country's laws, rules and dictates with me.
The Apostille, in it's form and effect, is my WRITTEN, DOCUMENTED NOTICE that I am WHO I SAY and WHAT I say. How many times has some incompetent, criminal type claimed "diplomatic immunity" and walked away from something heinous -- are we demanding such? Not most of us. We are demanding that we be treated as the True CREATORS of that which attempts to subjugate -- and we are asserting that we DO NOT accept that role, and hereby notice the World of that assertion.

I may be cracked, but I'll join HB and keep my mind open and my eyes and ears the same.

Seeker

OK,

Hopefully this will clear up any misunderstandings that have happened on this thread.

I am looking into doing this procedure next, (pacinlaw.org) not because I have to, but for the same reason I just filed a DBA a few months back.

It's not because I had to jump through a hoop, it's because I used their "hoops" to show the distinction between Henry Franklin, and Henry F. Bowman. Putting it into the public record simply shows that I have acted in good faith.

It's simply using the existing law to beat them at their own game.

As far as this procedure of the "sovereign ID", all you are doing is stating "your law" (You are telling them what the deal is).

In my own situation, I'd like the freedom to travel without hassle. This is only my opinion, but I have heard Weis state that this method overloads the circuits of the flunkies of the system (Read: Lawyers and patrolmen etc.)

In my minds eye, I can forsee handing a correctly authenticated Certificate of Identification to a trooper, which states that I am sovereign, and the possibility of his not wanting to get involved just went up 1000%. Why?

Because I will take the time to provide the evidence that they will have to rebut or live with, and their boss signed off on knowing about it.

This is the gist of this procedure, and I plan on following this route, because I'd rather do this, than to give the bastards another dime of deceit money. (Money I don't have to give them, but they want me to think I do.)

I opt for spending their FRN's on creating my public record to build the evidence of sovereignty.

Just my opinion.



Henry Franklin

[Jerseee]

Weis,

Very good rebuttal.

So this whole thing hinges on rebutting presumption? Well I did read some of the stuff on the site and if I were convinced of it--I would support it. But because I am not convinced of it--does not mean I did not read it.

And correct me if I'm wrong here (going back to the rebutting presumption thingy), for someone to "expatriate", doesn't this imply or even state that you were once patriated?

I mean for example, you can't have an ex-wife--if she was never your wife to begin with. Now if she is not or has never been your wife--how can you have an ex-wife?

Furthermore, if you rebut that she is your ex-wife--then by reason, she was once your wife.

Thus, if you never patriated, how can you ex-patriate? Unless you say that you are patriated and now wish to expatriate....this makes more sense. Just like, I'm married but now I want a divorce.

Look bruh, this is how I see it. Once you do that stuff--you're admitting things being patriated at one time or another through default. You can't be something you never were. If they wanted to, they could come back and claim that you were once patriated--and now you can never rebut that claim because you "expatriated".

Be careful homie.

good discussion my man!

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Incorrect assumption
The documentation in no way begs, asks, or inquires. It involves a self directed naturalzation, declaration, refusal and cancellation.
You are not asking them to do anything.
I am going to assume that you didn't read the Nationality premise in the expat tutorial thread.


[b]expatriation is a right in the statutes at large. The right to choose one's nationality is an inherent natural right. You are making formal public notice of it -- IN LAW.


Your misunderstanding what's going on.
This is building an admin record declaring who you are PRIOR to any action.
Should you be a defendant, the BoP is on them to rebut you due to the mountainous admin record you have established



You haven't really researched this enough to make the determination that this is misleading folks.
The results are that people are getting out of Federal Pens because of this stuff, traveling in airports from place to place WITH THEIR OWN SELF MADE DOCUMENTATION WHICH THEY DIDN"T ASK FOR, getting pulled over and not harrassed.

I believe that you are making broad brushed assumptions which are based on general concepts without any real specific address regarding state nationality.

When people start getting hammered on the National I.D. card and/or going to jail because of refusal you will be thinking differently.

[Akira]

Jersee,

you're admitting things being patriated at one time or another through default. You can't be something you never were. If they wanted to, they could come back and claim that you were once patriated--and now you can never rebut that claim because you "expatriated".

I understand your point, but it's minor... and can be quashed with an affidavit...


So I think, considering things as they stand today, it's not a bad move...

Just a couple of old sayings to consider....

This one Chinese...

"He who resorts to violence, has already lost...."

I think we can all agree on the blind obedience of the boys in black.. and their extreme arrogance. So unless there's extreme doubt on their part, (provided by paperwork?), they will use violence.


I remember Mom saying this to me at least a thousand times growing up...

"In a perfect world, such would be the case.... but it's not a perfect world"

I agree... we shouldn't have to jump thru BB's "hoops", but.....

and finally...

"An ounce of prevention ois worth a pound of cure."

Until more of "We the People" wake up.... I have no problem with spending a few hundred dollars to make my life more convenient and hassle free.. I'm already prepared to get in BB's face every time they mess with me... but through this simple process, I can avoid having to do that as well... So, I'm doing this for me, not them..

I mean... what about the arguement that "I don't really need the driver's license, I have a right of travel... I just use it to avoid inconvenience"

I don't need to put a lock on my door, either... God help the person who steps through uninvited... but maybe a lock would save me some aggravation, and some ignorant person, a lot of pain, hmm?

I'm going to do the process.... In the short term, it makes sense. In the long term, I hope freedom will return, and it won't even be a consideration for folks in the future.

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Jerseee]

Akira,

I'm not saying it does not work. I'm saying that it may work against you someday. There are just enough holes in this for me to not support it. But this is me and my position.

Hell, if you can do the same thing with an affidavit, then why do all of this?

Also, just because it sounds like an "ounce of prevention" does not mean that it is prevention.

Condems break and they say this is prevention.

Godspeed and hope this path helps many.

Originally Posted by Akira

Jersee,

I understand your point, but it's minor... and can be quashed with an affidavit...


So I think, considering things as they stand today, it's not a bad move...

Just a couple of old sayings to consider....

This one Chinese...

"He who resorts to violence, has already lost...."

I think we can all agree on the blind obedience of the boys in black.. and their extreme arrogance. So unless there's extreme doubt on their part, (provided by paperwork?), they will use violence.


I remember Mom saying this to me at least a thousand times growing up...

"In a perfect world, such would be the case.... but it's not a perfect world"

I agree... we shouldn't have to jump thru BB's "hoops", but.....

and finally...

"An ounce of prevention ois worth a pound of cure."

Until more of "We the People" wake up.... I have no problem with spending a few hundred dollars to make my life more convenient and hassle free.. I'm already prepared to get in BB's face every time they mess with me... but through this simple process, I can avoid having to do that as well... So, I'm doing this for me, not them..

I mean... what about the arguement that "I don't really need the driver's license, I have a right of travel... I just use it to avoid inconvenience"

I don't need to put a lock on my door, either... God help the person who steps through uninvited... but maybe a lock would save me some aggravation, and some ignorant person, a lot of pain, hmm?

I'm going to do the process.... In the short term, it makes sense. In the long term, I hope freedom will return, and it won't even be a consideration for folks in the future.

For HIS Glory,
Akira

First, here is the presumption:

U.S.C. 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8

§ 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Release date: 2005-05-17

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

They are assuming that you are a person, because they say you are.

Now, I am not going to post all of the code that says "Any person who..." because of time and you already know a lot of that anyway.

They think (assume) you are not a flesh and blood sovereign, but one of their persons.

Now, take a look at this:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions . Release date: 2004-02-11

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.


The above does not require you to say that you are a current US citizen, but rather to make an oath to a foreign state or political subdivision thereof. Why not to the dejure state that you were born in?

See Weis's post here for the nitty gritty on all this. We who have been here know that States (the ones here) are foreign to the US.

Henry Franklin

Not expatriating, choosing.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

So this whole thing hinges on rebutting presumption?

[b]I believe the rebut is an aspect, but not a hinge.
The overall scope is that you are correcting your Nationality. We KNOW that the 14th Amdmt is a fraud & was never ratified.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Well I did read some of the stuff on the site and if I were convinced of it--I would support it. But because I am not convinced of it--does not mean I did not read it.

My Bad on the assumption. There are many articles well worth reading on that site. I believe that you are shortchanging your education, but that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

And correct me if I'm wrong here (going back to the rebutting presumption thingy), for someone to "expatriate", doesn't this imply or even state that you were once patriated?

Yes it is ridiculous and I agree. I use expat for lack of the better term.
I like to think of it as Nationality correction. They need to correct the record just like the CRA's need to correct it. There was never a debt in the frst place, - - - RIGHT????

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Look bruh, this is how I see it. Once you do that stuff--you're admitting things being patriated at one time or another through default. You can't be something you never were. If they wanted to, they could come back and claim that you were once patriated--and now you can never rebut that claim because you "expatriated".

It's just like the fake debt thing. Also, in the docs we let them know about how the whole thing is fiction due to the senate report from 1967 proving the fraud of the 14th amdmt. We just don't wish to play in their mindf!@#$k playground or have them assume that we should be playing ball w/THEM.(in legal terms, of course).

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Be careful homie.

good discussion my man!

The admonishment is certainly reasonable & I appreciate the chikity check.

About evidence & rebuttable presumptions
Let's look at 8 USC 1502:

• 
  Sec. 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by Secretary of State
  
  
  for person not a naturalized citizen of United States for use in
  
  
  proceedings of a foreign state
  
  
  -STATUTE-
  
  
  The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion
  
  
  and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a
  
  
  certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized
  
  citizen of the United States
  
  who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and
  
  that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state.

Now notice that ONE MUST PROVIDE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE.

What better evidence could we provide in our next proceeding than the hefty admin record IN LAW that we are a state national.

The term American National is only a general designation. More specifically, all your American nationalities are PROVEN to exist Here
in the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual at 5.22 & 5.23 says

• 5.22. The table beginning on page 233 shows forms to be used
  for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality.
  5.23. In designating the natives of the several States, the
  following forms will be used.
  Alabamian
  Alaskan
  Arizonan
  Arkansan
  Californian
  Coloradan
  Connecticuter
  Delawarean
  Floridian, etc . .

I have heard of people saying they have a passport saying American National or whatever, but that is a fluke and has NO GROUNDING IN LAW.
One is a Michiginian or New Jersian, etc . . .

More on 8 USC 1502 continued:

• Such certificate shall be solely for use in the case for which it was
  
  
  issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through
  
  
  appropriate official channels to the judicial or administrative
  
  
  officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.

See, this is Hot Sh!t. They don't even want you to have it. JUst for the case at hand for the judge to see.

So at the next proceeding, this court cannot even move forward until I get my certificate in 8 USC 1502. I have provided satisfactory evidence that I am not a naturalized U.S. citizen WAY BEFORE THIS CHARADE.

Satisfactory evidence IS NOT waiting for them to pounce on you & then stating how sovereign you are in your pleading and that you are a lumberjack on the land who gets his maple syrup on tap from the trees he chops and mainlines it in his nutsack, etc . . .