Robert Schulz rats out his followers

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

The Federalist papers also confirm that the "Entitlement" of the document is named "The People", who uses entitlements? ... Corporations and franchises. Men and Women therefore tricked into believing that "The People" is the flesh and blood and it is clearly NOT.

Which Federalist Paper do you have in mind here?

[Friendsplacect]

Well I guess Shoonras objective of his post has worked. Divide and conquer.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Whatever these symbols are the people didn't agree to give them power, or can you show otherwise?

I am not sure how much you know about the sovereignty movement, but it is quite different from the patriot movement which it seems to be your doctrine.
" The People " are the Corporate Body Politic, a society created by man for fictions. They say "free society".. yeah right!, a society is not free nor a society if you cannot come and go as you please without regulation or restriction or have a direct voice in the policy making.

Originally Posted by BOBT12

I have been in court a few times, they haven't did anything with a Bible. Although they do ask one to swear or affirm.

See the following post, it all ties in together:
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citize...ree-slave.html

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Perhaps we should resist, since the Constitution doesn't support this.

Again this is a solid Patriot movement thought, the hard point to swallow is that your either in or your out, you cannot live in someones society and get benefits then expect to not have to follow the rules of that society.

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Only if you choose to read it this way, and agree with it. Otherwise, you, like myself, should resist such a outrageous view. It was never intended, by the people, that the people would be deprived of natural rights coming from the Creator.

By an overwhelming amount of evidence I have no choice but to think such things and live the way I do.
It was never intended that way, but it is what it is no matter how many quotes from the founding fathers you can post up here, it does not change the facts.
I believe quite a few founding fathers went into this Constitutional thing with a melancholy state of mind, but there was nothing any of them could do because atleast 9 representatives from the several states decided that this had to be done which was lawful according to Articles of Confederation X or 10.
It is all a matter of connecting the dots brother, mine or your name is not on that document so we were not a party to it. But we were jack booted into the scheme with being fooled into private agreements.

[mrg]

As far as I know, changes to the Articles of Confederation required unanimity, not consent of nine.

The passage of the Constitution was via a method not current the law of the land at the time.

I could be wrong.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by mrg

As far as I know, changes to the Articles of Confederation required unanimity, not consent of nine.
The passage of the Constitution was via a method not current the law of the land at the time.
I could be wrong.

It was not changed, they just allowed the Constitution to be passed into law... aka law of the land.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were signed by a group of men who were never present in the Congress at the same time.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

By an overwhelming amount of evidence I have no choice but to think such things and live the way I do.
It was never intended that way, but it is what it is no matter how many quotes from the founding fathers you can post up here, it does not change the facts.
I believe quite a few founding fathers went into this Constitutional thing with a melancholy state of mind, but there was nothing any of them could do because atleast 9 representatives from the several states decided that this had to be done which was lawful according to Articles of Confederation X or 10.
It is all a matter of connecting the dots brother, mine or your name is not on that document so we were not a party to it. But we were jack booted into the scheme with being fooled into private agreements.

Then why are you here, it looks like the fix is in, for you?

"Liberty must at all hazard be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and brought it for us at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." --John Adams, "A Dissetation on the Canon and Feudal Laws," 1765

Remember, some of us still choose to contest the issue.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Which Federalist Paper do you have in mind here?

It is discussed in a few of them, you just need to learn how to read between the lines of deception:

Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now read 5 USC 552a(13), find out who is considered Federal Personnel and why.

Applications and entitlements, what do you get when you register a car? ... a title "state of" is the first name at the top. If government registers you in their system by application, guess who has the title and who's name is at the top. This is not rocket science.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

It is discussed in a few of them, you just need to learn how to read between the lines of deception

I'm quite familiar w/ the Federalist Papers.

I was just wondering which one you had in mind when you made your claim.

You don't mention any of the Federalist Papers in your response above.

Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now read 5 USC 552a(13), find out who is considered Federal Personnel and why.

You're alluding to Social Security and the issuance of SSNs?

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Then why are you here, it looks like the fix is in, for you?

Hag 1:13
Then spake Haggai the LORD'S messenger in the LORD'S message unto the people, saying, I [am] with you, saith the LORD.

Jer 51:31
One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon that his city is taken at [one] end,

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by psholtz

I'm quite familiar w/ the Federalist Papers.
I was just wondering which one you had in mind when you made your claim.
You don't mention any of the Federalist Papers in your response above.

Ok for instance lets take number 11;

Man, this one is loaded with speech about getting benefits and privileges from Britain and other European governments, it even mentions intentions of a Corporate Enterprise rather then states doing regular business as usual. For something that was suppose to be foreign from the several states they sure did help themselves to the cookie jar in the interest of a Corporation.
Just connecting the dots for you hear due to the fact that the U.S. Corporation was first registered starting the year 1787 a full 2 years before the answer stated in my next entry of this post below.

Originally Posted by psholtz

You're alluding to Social Security and the issuance of SSNs?

A freeborn, Sovereign American individual cannot be forced into perpetual debtorship and involuntary servitude, that is, feudalistic performance on behalf of, and for the benefit of, any person, real or juristic, against his Thirteenth Article of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Nor can He be compelled, by Law, to accept, or to give informed consent to accept, an Equitable jurisdiction foreign to his venue.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of The United States of America, states in part:

"The Judicial Power shall extend .. . . . to all Cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction; ... . ."


At the very beginning of government under the Constitution , Congress conferred on the federal district courts exclusive cognizance "of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, . . . . . . ; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a Common Law remedy, where the Common Law is competent to give it;. . ." (1 STAT 77, Section 9 (1789))

In another words if your under the private agreement of SSN which is in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, common law is not competent to stand in for your protections.