Saturday, August 31, 2013

Police (policy) Enforcement Officers ARE Pirates

Pirates don't use boats anymore. They use squad cars!

Pirate: pi·rate

1. use or reproduce (another's work) for profit [1] without permission.
2. rob or plunder.

We all know, who have studied law, and actually have read our states motor vehicle act, how they insist on claiming that we are 'operating' 'driving' a 'motor vehicle' so as to put us into that 'merchant' classification for the pirates to seize our stuff, their booty. It all falls under admiralty law. Bear in mind that the words Operating, motor vehicle, driving, person, merchant, are all legal terms used to describe someone conducting themselves in commerce. In other words, using the roads to turn a profit like a truck or taxi driver. Check out Eddie Craig for a down to earth explanation of what I just said.

You say they don't have any buried treasure? They do. It's buried deep in trust law. By the way, the pirates that we think about when we hear the word, did not bury treasure. They split it up among the crew after making their getaway.

 A cops letter of mark is his badge.
Letter of mark: 
1. a license granted by a state to a private citizen to arm a ship and seize merchant vessels of another nation
2. a similar license issued by a nation allowing a private citizen to seize goods or citizens of another nation Also called letter of marque and reprisal

 Having adequately just shown how police are today's pirates, it's time to move on to what to do with / about them. Obviously, they have the Powers granted them by the STATE threw their letter of mark to rob and plunder the citizens. I'm not going to get into the difference between citizens and the People in this post as it is another subject worth it's own posting. Here's a link to that conversation.

What to do about pirates.
1. Learn the difference between privileges and rights. Most people only allow themselves privileges threw their own consent and then wonder why their government is always trying to take them away. Rights can NOT be taken away, but privileges can.
2. Stand on your rights! You need to know what they are and how to use them first! They are NOT the Bill Of Rights! That is only a restraining order against the government infringing on some of the most basic and important rights owned by the People.
3. Learn how to hold the pirates accountable for their acts of piracy. What this blog is all about. Subscribe and check back often. I don't post nearly as much as I would like to sometimes, but that being said, I usually post more than anyone would care to sit down and read in one day almost every day.
4. Punishment. Well, after learning how to hold them accountable, the issue of what to do to them comes up. Obviously if they are in the process of robbing you or placing you and your family in harms way, you have the right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and even your property from harm. Here's a video from Larken Rose on the subject of "When to shoot a cop." Don't go taking that as him saying, go out and shoot cops, because that is NOT what he's saying in the video at all. He's talking about your rights and when should they come into play when dealing with a criminal pirate.

I plan to do more research into how to go after their surety bonds. If a cop can no longer get his bond, then he is unemployable as a pirate anymore. I don't even think they would hire him as a janitor at the local pig station.

It's also worth mentioning that on average, around the world, a person convicted of piracy, receives a 16 year jail sentence for their crime. 
"Worldwide, the sentences imposed on pirates for similar crimes range from four years to life in prison. The average sentence globally is 16 years—quite high in relation to sentences administered by international tribunals for more severe international offenses such as genocide and war crimes. Yet the average belies a massive variance across jurisdictions, with European nations and Kenya giving sentences that are one-third to one-half the global average and the US imposing sentences several times longer. The disparity in sentencing raises the issue of equity among defendants, particularly because the defendants are all engaged in similar conduct but their punishments depend on where they happen to be tried." From 'Penalties For Piracy.'

What it all comes down to is them acting in commerce to attack and steal merchant property with letters of mark. The very definition of a pirate.

When exactly did this,

turn into this?

Or this,
turn into this?

Or this,
turn into this?

A Treatise On Arrests And False Imprisonment

I'm thinking I need to add another section to the side bar, or at the bottom of the page for links to pdf's that are very relevant to the topics here.

Here is one of them.

Self Government

Paraphrased from a friend of mine.
"A sovereign man is self-governing. Law is for those who refuse to govern themselves."
- ZJ Free

Indeed, the law is only for the law breaker. A honest and peaceful man has nothing to fear from it. It does not apply to him. Just like the constitution does not apply to the People. It was written to restrain government. It is 'law' set up to regulate them and not the people. I sometimes feel as though my head is going to explode when I hear people use the term "my constitutional rights" instead of "my constitutionally protected rights." It may sound nit picky, but to understand the difference is a big deal. One shows that the man saying it is not capable of governing themselves, and the other shows that they are capable of self government.

Friday, August 30, 2013

State of the Union

The Sui Juris 10 Commandments

By: Rob Johnson  
Let me put it this way, regarding any charge that does not have an element of harm if you are not doing the below you are not using my work at all. No harm done for using others work in the past. We learn from our experiences. Going forward do this.The Sui Juris 10 Commandments.

1 Sign everything from cops under protest and duress

2. Answering summons with conditional acceptance following through to protest for non acceptance w Notary

3 PRESENTING yourself at initial hearing SUI JURIS AUTONOMOUS, by special appearance ONLY.

4. Determining whether or not there is a complaining party.

5. IMMEDIATELY upon establishing no complaining party, moving to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and CONCLUDING SPECIAL APPEARANCE.

6. After concluding special appearance NO MATTER WHAT the court says JUST WALK OUT.( Takes balls but displays sovereignty)

7. SIMPLY EXERCISING YOUR RIGHT (Like Robert Forgette). because the first step to HAVING rights is ACTING like you HAVE RIGHTS. It does not

matter if you have rights if you continue to behave as a slave requesting permission to exercise them.

8. Empower your Notary Public. After you have succeeded OR FAILED in this matter, you can hold the Notary accountable for refusing to do their DUTY. You can hold the Notary liable for ALL fees you incurred because they refused to do their duty and witness you properlyu offering discussion. So you EITHER empower your notary and get cooperation OR hold them accountable and then criminally charge them as well. NO MIDDLE GROUND.

9.Serve Notice of Criminal Complaint upon your Sheriff regarding ANY violations of your rights committed by any officers, meaning you get their names and badge numbers, and then hold them accountable for being the criminals.

10 Begin to BELIEVE and ACT like the SOVEREIGN KING you are. Exercise that sovereign will by taking that fucking license out of your wallet nd leaving it at home. You do not have to cut the thing up nor even give it back. The registration is what you are voiding. You can just leave it at home. If the officer doesn't see THAT or some other government issued photo ID they are in real trouble and had better let you go. Never allow the lies of the court to become your truths or to allow them to intimidate you into contracting or believing you owe them money.


What manner of PERSON are you?

What manner of PERSON are you?
Just exactly what is a person by legal definition? What is the legal authority of a person? Is a Christian a person? The answers to these questions have eluded Americans ever since the end of Lincoln's Civil War and the general acceptance of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since all State statutes and every court in the United States, right down to the local municipal courts, define every American as a person, then we should find out just what this means so that we can understand what we are according to the civil governments and judges.
Law dictionaries are a necessary resource in defining any word used in the courts or civil governments. In our research, it's very odd that we found the 'not so obvious' while the 'obvious' was not there to be defined. For example, let's start with the definition for the word person:
PERSON: 1. "natural person". 2. the body of a human being. also: the body and clothing of a human being. Example: had drugs on his person. 3. one (as a human being or corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties (see also: juridical person, legal person, personality). --Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. [underlining added].
PERSON - In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. See e.g. National Labor Relations Act, Partnership Act, §2. Scope and delineation of term is necessary for §2(1), 29 U.S.C.A. §152; Uniform determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to individual, partnership, and corporation, but not governmental unit. Bankrupt Code - "Person" includes organization. U.C.C. §1-201(30). Definition of "person" or U.S.C.A. §101; Commercial Law - An individual or "municipal utility operators suing as plaintiffs seeking damages persons" covered by anti-trust laws includes cities, whether as for antitrust violations or as operators being sued as defendants. City of Lafayette, La. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., La., 435 U.S. 389, 98 S.Ct. 1123, 1128, 55 L.Ed.2d 364. --Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, The West Group ©1999. [underlining added]
A person is defined here as various legal entities (ie. a corporation, association, city, partnership, etc.), a human being, an individual, or a natural person. The simplest term to understand is that of any legal entity, such as a corporation. Every legal entity is created by the state itself and under the exclusive authority of the state that created it. Quick look into Title 26 U.S.C. §7343 [Definition of the term "Person"]: The term "person" as used in this chapter [chapter 75] includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. Did you get that? The term "person" is defined as "an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership". Did you see teh words  man" or  woman"? Something that may surprise most readers is a look at legal definition of an individual:
Individual. adj.
1. Existing as an indivisible entity. 2. Of or relating to a single person or thing, as opposed to a group. --Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, The West Group ©1999. [underlining added]
At first, this seems like double-talk, but it's not. An individual is a single legal entity as opposed to a corporate entity (made of members who comprise a singular group). None-the-less, a legal entity is simply a legal entity. In reality, the definitions are telling us that an individual is a legal entity, a fiction of "law", with the same legal structure and authority as a corporation, but with only one singular "member". If a flesh and blood man appears before a court answering that he is an individual, he has agreed and stated that he is a legal entity. Also, a look into Title 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2) or (a)(13) which shows an ‘individual’ [as legally defined] to be a ‘public officer’ or ‘federal personnel’. Here's further explanation:
Entity. An organization (such as a business or a governmental unit) that has a legal identity apart from its members. --Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, The West Group ©1999.
This pretty much groups together corporations, cities, associations, individuals, etc., as legally created separate entity persons. Next, let's see what a natural person is as shown in the above definitions.
NATURAL PERSON: a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law. --Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. [underlining added]
From this definition, there is the distinction that a natural person is not a person created by state law (a legal entity). A natural person is defined here as a human being. Although a human being is not defined as a corporation, both are defined as being a person.
LEGAL PERSON: a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued. --Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. [underlining added].
ARTIFICIAL PERSON: "legal person"--Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. [underlining added].
This helps us further understand that by following these definitions, a human being - a natural person -apparently is not defined as a legal person or an artificial person. So, it appears that a person is comprised of two distinct groups:
a human being - natural person (not created by state or civil "law").
a legal - artificial person (specifically created by state or civil "law". A legal entity).
The Christian Man vs. a legal person
If you're a Christian, are you also a person?
Man was created by the immediate hand of God and is generically different from all other creatures --Genesis 1:26, 27 and 2:7. Man was created in the likeness of God and the perfection of His nature in knowledge -- Col. 3:10.
Man was created in His righteousness and holiness --Ephesians 4:24.
Man was created with dominion over all the inferior creatures --Genesis 1:28.
God created man in His own Divine image --Genesis 1:27.
Is this Man God created the same as the legalistic MAN who is defined in our present law dictionaries as a human being, a natural person?
The legal terms human being and natural person are not found in the Bible. They are not created by God. They are legal titles for entities created by a "law" which is not the Law of God, the Lex Ecclesia.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. --Genesis 2:7.
It was the breath of God Himself that gave Man -Hebrew, Adam- Divine inspiration, a soul, and spirit life. Why are the words inspiration, soul, spirit and life not within the current legal definitions of MAN?
Because the legalistic "law" now prevailing in America does not recognize the Law of God and does not recognize that Man is Divine life. If the corporate and governmental persons were to recognize the superior and allodial authority of the Lord God, they would have to admit that the Law of God was superior to their "laws" - mere legalisms. How could they collect their feudal tenant servitude from the Christians who occupy God's land since the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof?
Legally, MAN is a superior creature and nothing more. Their legal definitions say so. Lawfully, Man is a spritual creation in and of God's image, separate and distinct from the other animals. Man was created by and has inherent life from the Lord's breath -Hebrew, neshâwmâh-, but a MAN is created by the civil laws of an entity and owes it's existence to a mere legal person who creates more legal persons. Whereby, the Man of God's image has life, but a MAN has no life outside of the legal realm that created it.
How do you choose to call yourself now that you know the truth?

Are you free or are you a slave?

 Author unknown
Originally, the Constitution limited the jurisdiction of the federal government by making citizens of the state in which they were born or resided. According to the Constitution, the federal government could only have jurisdiction on a person if they lived in Washington DC or a US territory.
The Federalists who took control of our government after the Civil War, instituted the 14th Amendment to "protect" the former slaves. This amendment allowed the former slaves to come under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government in order that the Federal Government could protect their Constitutional rights. Many blacks were being abused by people and the local or state governments would not come to their aid. The 14th Amendment may have freed the slaves from oppression of their neighbors, but it gave them and us a new master, the Federal Government. The 14th Amendment makes us citizens of the United States AND of the several states. This allows the Federal Government to have jurisdiction over us that it never had before the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment also states (the last section) that the debt of the Federal government cannot even be questioned.
Most people have received their United States citizenship when they received their Social Security Card. With the Social Security Card came income taxes. I am not going to go into how we have been put under Statutory (Admiralty) Law; I will simply state that we are under it. We all know this because we need a license (permission to break the law) or permit to do things. A free citizen doesn't require a license or a permit. Why would a free person require permission from the government to get married, drive a car, start a business, to add onto his/her home or improve his/her property?
Please show me in the US Constitution or your state constitution where a government has the right to demand such obedience? If anyone is arrogant enough to try to use the US Constitution to show such things, please align your argument with the 10th Amendment. How did we get in such a mess, but more importantly, how do we get out of such a mess?
The Congress in session during the time the 14th Amendment was declared law provided people with a way to get out from under these provisions. It is called an apostille. An apostille allows you to deny or renounce your United States citizenship and receive diplomatic immunity. For total freedom, you also must file a UCC-1 lien against your strawman and a denial of corporate existence against the incorporated local and state governments.
Have you ever noticed that your driver's license, bank statement, and any bill that you receive is in all capital letters? This is not by accident; there is a legal reason for this.
The United States is bankrupt and has been since 1933. The government has no gold or silver as required by the Constitution. The only asset left is the people. So how does the U.S. finance its daily operations?
Solution, collateralize the people for credit. How? By registering them in international commerce, and selling bonds on them. The people become the surety on the bonds, or the "pledge". The asset bonded (surety) is the labor of the people which is payable as some undetermined future date. Thus, the people become the "utility" for the "transmission" of energy. Result, a very sophisticated form of peonage or slavery and the Constitution does not apply because the government, on all levels, is thrown into international commerce, the law merchant, now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. [See Public Law 88-244 in which the U.S. Subscribed to private international law. See definition of "goods" under the Uniform Commercial Code; Section 2-105(1) and 9-105(1) in which animals, i.e. humans and their unborn offspring, become "goods" sellable in commerce!
When a baby is born in the United States, a birth certificate is registered withthe Bureau of Vital Statistics in the State of birth. The key word here is "registered" as registered in international commerce. The baby becomes the surety, whose energy is due at some future date. When the birth certificate is registered in the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department of Treasury issues a bond on the birth certificate ($1,000,000) and the bond is sold at some securities exchange and perhaps bought by the Federal Reserve Bank, which then uses it as collateral in order to issue Federal Reserve Notes or some other form of "debt obligation" (see 18 USC §411). The bond is then held in trust for the Federal Reserve at the Depository Trust Corp. At 55 Water Street, in New York City, about two blocks down the street from the Fed. It is a high rise office building and the sign out front reads "The Tower of Power".
When the birth certificate is registered, a separate legal entity is created, like a mirror image of the flesh and blood human. This separate entity, or alter ego (THE ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME) is the "straw man". (See, Back's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition). And it is the "accommodation party" of the Uniform commercial Code §3-415. The "name" is credit. (See, Back's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition, "accommodation party"). Therefore the right (or the use) has been separated from the title (or deed). The "straw man" holds the title (he belongs to the government's client who bought the title) and the real live you, flesh and blood man or women has only naked possession with the limited "right" to use the thing (like your body or your alleged possessions and land). Maybe that's why our civil rights suits get dismissed out of court on Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motions. This deals with "failure to state a title upon which relief can be granted". A claim is another word for "title". So we have "failed to state upon which relief can be granted". We do not own the "title", even to our own bodies anymore. Isn't that encouraging! How free are you now?
When the straw man violates some rule or statue (for instance a traffic ticket), the flesh and blood, the real you has to appear at the arraignment and admit the straw man's name (credit) and the "energy" surety is due and payable (fine) by the flesh and blood man who is in use of the straw man. This, I'm sure, is why it is so important to "voluntarily give" your name to the magistrate (court). The defendant is the straw man. The real you, the flesh and blood man is the "offender". An "offender" is on the offensive team until he screws up and goes on the defensive team with the defendant (straw man) and looses as the real man.
So if this scenario is correct, how does one get back the bond that has been sold on the birth certificate. And then how does one get in control of his body and his property?
TITLE = RIGHT = REMEDY = RELIEF can only be granted after perfecting the "security interest" in the "goods" (The collateral = pignus = the straw man)
Stramineus homo /straminiyas howmow/. L. Lat. A man of straw, one of no substance, put Forward as bail surety.
Stratocracy /stseokraisiy/. A military government; government by military chiefs of an army.
Straw man or party. A "front", a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser, or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed.
At birth your parents and the doctor become the pledger of the birth certificate title to the baby Johnny. The State become the recipient of this pledge for the future energy output of "Johnny". The state converts the "title security document" into a bond which is sold on the open market place to finance government. The bond holder is the secured party to receive the future energy output of Johnny. Johnny is the mere naked holder and possessor of the body with no title. His duty is to the secured party.
The definition of the straw man now becomes apparent. The straw man is nom de guerre artificial entity put forth that is owned by the secured party who bought into the bond placed on the market by the Treasury of the United States. The straw man is not yours. It is the front man for the secured party holder of the bond. Whatever the straw man signs, he does so to place title to property in the hands of the UNITED STATES and the bond owner. The straw man does not place title to the property into Johnny's hands. That is because Johnny does not have title to the straw man. The straw man belongs to the UNITED STATES and the bond owner.
In order to get one's liberty and independence back, one must first secure the title and ownership of the straw man back. Once one controls the straw man, then one controls the rights of the property that the straw man acquires.
The key to ownership is registration. In a military government, registered property is recognized By the "public" side. If the property is registered on the public side of the government, then the property is public. If the property is registered on the private side, then the property is private with no public interest.
The military government (democracy) has three appointed leaders. The governor, the Secretary Of State, and the Secretary of Treasury. The Secretary of State holds the registration for the Democracy corporation. The public side of the registration is the "corporate filings" at the state And county levels. The private side of the filings are the "Uniform Commercial Code filings" of the creditors to transactions. This registration by the private creditor is the highest priority of recognition by the military State (democracy). If one is not registered, then one is believed to be "foreign" with no rights, private or public, except what is granted by the military law form As a privilege.
For one to regain title to his body, the Birth Certificate must be secured and attached and recorded in the private UCC-1 filings with the Secretary of State in the democracy. Once the living soul has redeemed his Birth Certificate and filed notice of the redemption by a UCC-1 filing with the Secretary of State, then the living soul has the right of property ownership in himself through his straw man who now belongs to the living soul. Furthermore, the bond created and sold in the market place for the straw man now becomes the property of the living soul. The living soul now has the capacity to own real property by allodium and to own private chattel property by the process of the passover, redemption, chargeback, and discharge of public debt.
What's in a name? Very simple. A name is CREDIT. For any unauthorized person to use your Name or the strawman's name (when they do not own the title to the straw man) is to violate the laws of "slander of credit". Once you have redeemed the straw man and own him, then any further commercial process done by any person (like an attorney, a judge, or law enforcement office without your consent) is slander of credit against your straw man. This is a federal criminal securities violation that means prison for them.
Until you redeem your straw man and register his title to you, the living soul, then your straw man becomes the source of the credit for the UNITED STATES to the public affairs of the nation through the "pledge" or gift of your property) your body and energy) to them for their use.
Watch this video, it is an older video and the phone numbers are not good anymore but it gives you the basic idea behind the strawman and why it is important to file your UCC1

Article found at Freedom

Police vs Peace

"We all know that the concept of "police" is a fairly new one; right?? The word police is actually from "policy" and they are policy enforcement officers, NOT, peace officers. If you are in Canada, and you are a man/woman/child, you have no need for a policy enforcement officer (unless you are a member of government, or an employee of government as that is who legislative acts apply to according to the Canadian Constitution section 32. What people need is PEACE Officers, that are there to keep the peace, and any intelligent human being can see the merit in THAT. But THAT is far from their mandate as they must generate revenue EVERY shift."
- Darby Gallagher

American Pastime

The new (or not so new) American pastime. Oxymoronism.
- Chris Duke

"The World Is A Business"

Thursday, August 29, 2013

On Practicing Law

Updated License to give legal advice, play lawyer, represent, and annoy Judges.

1. THAT The practice of Law is an occupation of common right, the same being a secured liberty right. (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))
2. THAT No state may convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, issue a license and fee for it. (Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105 at 113 (1943)). The Supreme Court has broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. (Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944))
3. THAT The practice of Law can not be licensed by any state/State. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238, 239 (1957))
4. THAT Should any state convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, charge a fee and issue a license for it, one may ignore the license and fee and engage in the exercise of the right with impunity. (Shuttlesworth vs City of Birmingham 373 U.S. 262 (1962)) "A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law." (Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886))
5. THAT "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate or abolish them." (Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 at 491, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966)); "The State cannot diminish the rights of the people." (Hurtado v California, 110 U.S. 516)); Should any state convert any right to work into a privilege, issue a license and charge a fee, the same is unconstitutional, null and void, bears no obligation to obey, and is without effect in law. (Marburry vs Madison 5 US 137 (1803)),
6. THAT one who relies on prior decisions of the Supreme Court has a perfect defense for willfulness. (U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973), as “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”(Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489 (1956); "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights." (Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)); "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice." (Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449)). “No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.” (16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70)

What you know they are thinking.

"It's none of your business"

Haaaaaaahahahaha! This is some funny shit right here. "It's none of your business" she told them about a dozen times.

She (and or her boyfriend) has seen a few video's, or is a member on a site or page or two, but really does not grasp what is going on, or what her rights are. (Same as myself about two years ago) The number of times she grants them consent to be doing what they are doing, is just beyond counting! (not unlike the last time I was pulled over)

I give her a ton of credit for standing on what she thinks her rights are, and eventually being let go from arrest. She was under arrest the second they would not let her leave, and told her she was being detained. IF YOUR NOT FREE TO GO, YOUR UNDER ARREST! PERIOD! 5TH AMENDMENT PROTECTION TIME! At that point, you do not need to tell them if you have a bugger in your nose let alone provide them with anything they can use against you in a court of kangaroo shit. She provided enough information to them that they had every right to pull her and her boyfriend out of the car and beat and taze them to death the way cops are these days.

Hey, those of you who know what she did wrong, will get a kick out of this one. Those of you who don't know where she fucked up, if you try to do this like her pretty little blond ass did, expect the worst to happen. Ya better learn a few things if you insist on being a federal citizen and standing on privileges, because these cocksuckers have the privilege of removing your privileges these days. They are no different than jail house Trustees, but with a pirates badge. Hell, they used to fly a flag, but now they just wear badges to show they have letters of mark to carry out their unlawful activities.

These guys are the pussy versions of the SS!

Sunday, August 25, 2013


I just put together this response to a member's FaceBook message question. I was being asked about identification and finger printing orders. Because the police refuse to give the individual who was speaking to them by phone, the citation / case # for a charge they are facing shortly. It is clever. The police are attempting to get this individual to come to the station to get the citation # by producing government issued ID so they can act upon him and force fingerprinting orders upon him under assumed presumed consent in the contract which is executed creating the identification which government issues, which these police will most likely demand as the only acknowledged form of identification. If he were to hand the cops that government ID and say " this is me" which is what you do by implication when you hand an officer identification, he would be saying, HI, I am an entity you can act upon and use force against without consent because I have already given said consent in the contract based upon the ID I just handed you. I am an entity with NO RIGHTS, like IBM, a corporation, Corpse being the root of the word CORPORATION (body from latin) indicating the entity has no LIFE and therefore no RIGHTS, means teh officers can do whatever they want to him really, and use as much excessive force as they wish to force him to comply with their commands, orderd, deamands, directives, and all forms of other BILLABLE services under protest and duress. he should avoid that simply by avoiding producing government ID, and use COMMON LAW IDENTIFICATION. As per the message below I am going to be putting together a template, which research for will take longer than I though, to allow people to produce their own COMMON LAW identification which is NOT government issued, but in every way very much still quite lawful and MUST be acknowledges as it will be a NOTARIZED affidavit bearing 3 signatures of members of the community who have not been convicted of a crime. ANYONE can find 3 members of their community to come to a Notary with them and attest to their identity, their lawful right of birth sovereign inhabitant, sui juris common law STANDING (as opposed to status). I have started to direct people away after much consideration, from identifying themselves as having a STATus Sui Juris is not exactly a STATUS which is why it is not of RE-presentation but PRESENTATION, so naturally and lawfully as where status indicates REPRESENTATION, it is STANDING which indicates PRESENTATION, and Sui Juris is Literally the ACTION OF, standing upon your rights alone, where as pro per and pro se are indeed statuses, and are sitting literally REPRESENTED with only mere privileges. Of course we can only stand upon those rights in court which have not been waived, this is WHY they try to get people to confess to being of infant mentality by claiming a status which indicates REPRESENTATION, instead to being presented, so they DONT have standing upon RIGHTS, but limited liability mere protections of equity PRIVILEGE. Ok heres the response given.

Citation #s are public knowledge, they cant refuse to give it to you, your entire excuse now for not comp[lying with anything is now that you could not get the citation #, they made it impossible because they require you to show up in person to get something that is public knowledge and REQUIRE you to produce identification to obtain it. Your reason for not being able to get it is that you do not possess identification, have no obligation to obtain identification, and have no VOLUNTARY DESIRE to enter into such contracts as those upon which government issues identification cards, as those adhesion type contracts are the only method in which to obtain such an identification card, which the police will accept and consider to be "VALID". Furthermore it is obvious that this citation is not being imposed upon YOU, because it requires a government issued form of identification to obtain, and you have no obligation to possess such a thing. You could even argue that the polcie are violating your RIGHT to obtain public information under COLOR OF LAW for failing to possess and produce something that you have no obligation fo law to have, so furthermore they are forcing and compelling you into a contract under protest and duress. you see without that ID card they cannot create JOINDER between YOU the living being, and THE PERSON which they CAN act upon. They want you to produce ID so they can state they had evidence you were the type of entity that they can act upon, so they can compel you under further threat of force, to finger printing. Because it is assumed one VOLUNTARILY entered the contract which lead to the ID being issued by the state, the State and its agents, can lawfully ASSUME you have consented to the terms and conditions of the registration contract.

YOU are going to do ONE more thing before you do anything, and have now to do nothing with respect to this violation save for appearance which will be under SPECIAL APPEARANCE ONLY. You tried to enter discussion to avoid conflict but could not even get the citation # out of them. It should be on the actual summons you were given if you still have it. Anyway, what you now want to do, is get together 3 upstanding members of the community. Why? Because you are going to create common law identification. I am about to create and attach for you, a template to accomplish this. It will take me about an hour to create. The reason we are doing this is because you are going to go to the police station with your common law identification, which will simply be an AFFIDAVIT, not a government issued card. The Affidavit will state your given name, WHO you were born TO, Like so many words it is important, imperative even to understand the full scope and etymology of the word BORN*[1](referenced below, reference #1). So 'who you were "BORN to" is the same as saying who you were "PRODUCED by". Things like a CERTIFICATE of BIRTH, like what happens with a motor vehicle, the MOMENT you REGISTER BIRTH, you get certificate of title, just like CERTIFICATE of BIRTH this DOCUMENT is EVIDENCE that YOU were by your parents own signed consent, BORN TO the STATE, or PRODUCED by the State. Of course that lie is endorsed by States, even ENFORCED by states criminally. But of ocurse there are ways around that assumption, mainly because this BIRTH registration contract is inherently VOID ab initio retroactively to the date it was executed because it was NOT executed by YOU you cannot be bound to it OTHER than by intimidation and fraud. The document is a fraud on its very face because it certifies that the STATE produced YOU, but the fact is a State is a ficticious entity NOT CAPABLE of REPRODUCTION or PRODCUTION even. The State produces NOTHING, it steals from those who produce by constructive fraud in these registration contracts. Another reason you rcertificate of birth is a fraud and evidence of perjury as well being signed under oath to be a certified TRUE copy, committed by the city, county, villiage, or town CLERK. You see a CERTIFIED TRUE COPY can ONLY be produced FROM AN ORIGINAL, it CANNOT derive from ANOTHER COPY and be CERTIFIED a "TRUE COPY"

Back to the point now. YOU are creating a common law identification upon the document I am about to produce and deliver to you in the next HOUR. That is step 1. Step 2 is you take that common law identification and your 3 witnesses to a notary public. You are going to have the notary STAMP subscribed and sworn next to YOUR signature, AND next to EACH signature of your 3 witnesses. You are going to have to get a notary that KNOWS YOU PERSONALLY, in order to avoid having to produce identification for that notary to verify your identity. You see a Notary that personally KNOWS you can in common law identify you without you producing government issued ID, and can verify that the signature is YOURS. Actually all we want the Notary to do, so it doesnt matter if they know you or not it isjust prefereable if they do, but all we want the notary to do is verify that the signature on the paper next to the name on the paper BELONGS to the individual signing it. ALTERNATIVELY if you cannot get a Ntoary Public to do this WITHOUT forcing you to show government issued ID, there is no act of a Notary that 3 upstanding members of a community cannot perform. Ya know what scratch that I am just going to set this document up so that YOU are not even SIGNING it. I am going to set it up so that the 3 upstanding members of the community you find who DO have government issued ID, can befoer a Notary, prove their identity with their government ID, and then get the Notary after verifying their identities, right by their signatures, by EACH witness who will sign BEFORE the Notary, SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN. The idea is that the 3 witnesses you have will be on this affidavit, attesting to YOUR identity,, and identifying WHO YOU ARE, (by yor GIVEN NAME ONLY) and who your family is (your last name converted into a FAMILY name). These WITNESSES will be witnessing YOUR IDENTITY, and attest, holding the same root word as testify, will simply be giving a statement under OATH that THEY know who you are. AND that the individual in the affidavit so described and identified IS YOU. THEY are the ones who execute this affidavit, NOT YOU. But you carry this affidavit with you every where you go and it will be EVIDENCE of who you are. It is LAWFUL COMMON LAW IDNTIFICATION. I will have this ready shortly, EVERYONE should be doing this anyway, and EVERYONE can and I hope soon WILL be using this to replace their existing REAL ID. The beauty is that THIS identification MUST entitle you as a matter of common law and equal rights, to ALL of the privileges, benefits and rights afforded to ALL individuals.

That means you should and MUST as a matter of LAW be able to use this document to CROSS the border into mexico and Canada just like an ENHANCED DRIVER'S LICENCE. Most people never needed the very license that they HAVE so certainly have no need to "ENHANCE" (Imperialize) it. In theory it COULD be used as a passport to other countries as well. The reason you can use this for mexico and Canada is because of certain contractual arrangements between America Canada and mexico. it is important to understand that ALL which is allowed in civil law is also allowed in common law, so they cannot stop you from crossing the border using this LAWFULLY. That does not however mean they will not act lawlessly and refuse to recognize this affidavit. it is a crime to do so because it is notarized it MUST be accepted as true.

And again I expect the police to refuse to acknowledge this as a lawful form of identification and to refuse to give you the citation #, which is an EVENT YOU SHOUDL RECORD ON VIDEO. THIS alone will give you evidence that there is no matter concerning YOU before ANY COURT. Ok Im on this now.

Born, FROM past participle of beran past participle boren
beran alternative p (see bear "carry a burden, bring" "to bear, bring;

bring forth, produce; to endure, sustain; to wear"

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Robin The Hood

Pirates in Uniform Are Terrorizing the U.S.

Local governments nationwide are invoking powers of civil forfeiture to pluck people who have committed no crime from highways and elsewhere and take their money and property.
As revelations about the U.S. government’s ability and aggressive efforts to monitor people’s digital activity continue to trickle in, Sarah Stillman’s New Yorker profile of wild, unchecked abuse of power should chill any American.

The article begins with an account of a couple, waitress Jennifer Boatright and her boyfriend, Ron Henderson, and their two children driving on U.S. 59 toward Linden, Texas, in April 2007. It was an annual trip to visit family members and wander a set of wildflower trails. Shortly after arriving in Tenaha, Texas, the family was pulled over by a local cop. The officer inquired whether Henderson, a Latino, knew he’d been driving in the left lane for more than a mile without passing.

After asking whether there were any drugs in the car, the officer and his partner proceeded to search the vehicle. They found a marbled-glass pipe and a stash of money the couple had bundled together to buy a used car when they arrived at their destination. The officers escorted the group to a police station. A police report said the couple fit the profile of drug couriers. They were driving from Houston, “a known point for distribution of illegal narcotics,” to Linden, “a known place to receive illegal narcotics.” The children were described as possible decoys intended to distract police as the couple traveled down the road. No drugs were found in the car.

An hour into their questioning at the station, the county’s district attorney, Lynda K. Russell, arrived and told the couple they had two options. They could face felony charges for “money laundering” and “child endangerment”—which would place them in jail and their children in foster care—or they could sign their cash over to the city of Tenaha and get back on the road. “No criminal charges shall be filed,” a waiver Russell drafted read, “and our children shall not be turned over to CPS.” Boatright and Henderson gave up the money.
“Later,” Stillman writes, Boatright “learned that cash-for-freedom deals had become a point of pride for Tenaha, and that versions of the tactic were used across the country. ‘Be safe and keep up the good work,’ the city marshal wrote to [the officer], following a raft of complaints from out-of-town drivers who claimed that they had been stopped in Tenaha and stripped of cash, valuables, and, in at least one case, an infant child, without clear evidence of contraband.”

“Outraged by their experience in Tenaha,” Stillman continues, “Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson helped to launch a class-action lawsuit challenging the abuse of a legal doctrine known as civil-asset forfeiture.” The practice does not require suspects to be guilty of any crime. Fighting it in court is expensive and can take years. Tight budgets and personal greed mean law enforcement officers as well as governments have an incentive to milk the law for all they can.

Revenue gains over the years have been staggering. “At the Justice Department,” Stillman writes, “proceeds from forfeiture soared from $27 million in 1985 to $556 million in 1993. (Last year, the department took in nearly $4.2 billion in forfeitures, a record.) The strategy helped reconcile President Reagan’s call for government action in fighting crime with his call to reduce public spending. In 1989, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh boasted, ‘It’s now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation.’ ”

Read more of Stillman’s harrowing story here.

Eddie Craig Tao Law - How to handle a traffic stop.

Hanging out listening to this one again. Eddie does not get into sovereignty, (sort of wish he would) but weather that's your claim or not, you need to understand what he's saying here and how to respond to these criminal extortionists, or just keep on being a punk. Your choice. Learn or be a punk. Skip to about eleven minutes into it to avoid the infowar garbage.

My opinion of AJ is that he gets guys with real info from time to time on his show in order to discredit them for having been on his conspiracy show.

William "Bill" Dale Foust - RIP- Rescind All Contracts

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Check it out. IT'S FREE!

Tons of free information. Bookmark it and check back often. In fact, sign up for their forum where you can discuss issues with other like minded people. I just signed up myself. I also just added the website to the side bar link list. Great free reference material.

How Loans and Credit Cards Really Work - by White Rabbit

Natural Rights

"Natural rights - inherent rights and liberties are not the creatures of constitutional provisions either at the national or state level. The inherent human freedoms with which mankind is endowed are "antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." --The Supreme Court of Colorado (1962)

Monday, August 19, 2013

Governments job is to secure rights, and govern those who consent.

I was indoctrinated to believe that government had a “right” to tax income, by virtue of the 16th amendment, and that I only had taxable privileges to live, to work, to travel, and to own land and a home. I was instilled with rote learning and mimicked behavior regarding knee jerk patriotism and “making the world safe for Democracy.”
In essence, I was brainwashed by the most diabolical experts, reinforced by the world’s greatest propaganda ministry.

All I was told was a lie - almost. To transform the lies into truths, requires only one thing : my consent. Without my consent to be a subject citizen, voluntary enrollment into FICA, or my ignorant claims to be a resident residing at a residence, the collectivist State would have no delegated power to govern me.

Every abuse, every tyrannical act, every thing we think is “unconstitutional,” can be traced back to our consent.

And you will please note that NO mass media mouthpiece, left wing, right wing or lunatic fringe wing dares to even whisper : “withdraw consent!”
If you begin at the beginning, the Declaration of Independence spells it out.
Job #1 =

If you haven’t consented, all that government is authorized to do to you is “secure rights.” How? Prosecute deliberate injury. Adjudicate accidental injury. That’s it.
When you examine all the reams of regulatory and restrictive rules, you will find that they are limited in scope, venue and applicability. Invariably, such policy laws are made convoluted so as to hide their true nature. In contrast, when you examine laws that punish deliberate injury (i.e., murder, theft, assault, etc.) they are plainly written and easy to comprehend.

The bottom line - until you withdraw consent, no remedy is possible. After you withdraw consent, no remedy is needed... at least with respect to the honorable oath bound public servants. As to the rogues - well - they wouldn't have honored their oaths, either way.


Either these pukes are reading from a script, or they are that dumb.


Yes, they do consider jail a privilege!

Be careful or they may start throwing privileges at you!

He was right.

I gotta admit. Reading about the history and political structures of a bunch of Pacific Island nations last night gave me a broader perspective on the subject. Many of the smaller ones have a responsive small government of their own and are considered to be independent nations, but they really are no more than satellite nations of the UN under US control accepting welfare. So long as the illusion of freedom of choice remains in the minds of consenting populace, nothing will change anywhere. There is nowhere to run to anymore to escape it. Freedom begins in your own heart and mind, not in some administrative bureaucracy. The only real way to be free is to vacate.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

99% OR 1%?

  • Honestly, I think your either pissed off at the world the way it is, or just too stupid to give a fuck. What else is there? Lazy bastards? The pissed off ones need to learn the fucking law and their rights, and the stupid fucks need to all jump off a fucking cliff or something.  So, does that opinion make me one of the evil 1% for wishing the 99% just jump the fuck off?
  • Saturday, August 17, 2013

    Rights are as old as humans walking on two legs.


    If a license is required to do something which is otherwise unlawful without it, that would mean the government is permitting crime for a fee, which of course it can't. Therefore every act you can do with a license you can also Lawfully do without.

    Just as traveling is a Lawfully protected right. The only way it can be converted into a privilege is with your signed consent. Which is what the registration contract is. Seeing as it was coerced via deception, as full disclosure as to the nature of the contract was never given, it is fraud, unlawful, null and void form the start.

    Knowledge is power -

    Some more fun stuff today. Colonoscopy fun.

    Modern day Pirate fashion sense.


    Give a man a fish...

    "Give a man a fish, and he's starving by morning.

    Give a man a fishing pole and teach him to use it, and he'll go fish when he gets hungry.

    Give a man a badge and teach him nothing, and he'll beat the piss out of the guy with a fishing pole, steal his fish in the name of law, and tell him to have more by tomorrow or he's going to jail."

    -Dean Clifford

    Get more from Dean @

    On Taxation.

    Again, this subject deserves much more attention than one simple comic can even begin to get into. Look forward to a lot of information on 'taxation is theft' in the near future here on the blog. In the meantime, check out this link.  Taxfacts.tripod is one of the best sites to get into what it's all about and what's been going on. The link is also on this blogs sidebar for easy reference.

    Jury duty

    Jury duty deserves it's own post and not just a picture, but this was funny and I barley have time to share some good stuff my friends have been posting this morning.


    It may help to know the definition of the words crime [1], and corpus delicti [2] to understand why I even posted this. If you don't know the definitions of things, then how are you ever to understand them?

    A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.

    The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not looked upon with favor by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both civil and criminal arrests.

    arrest v. 1) to take or hold a suspected criminal with legal authority, as by a law enforcement officer. An arrest may be made legally based on a warrant issued by a court after receiving a sworn statement of probable cause to believe there has been a crime committed by this person, for an apparent crime committed in the presence of the arresting officer, or upon probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by that person. Once the arrest has been made, the officer must give the arrestee his/her rights ("Miranda rights") at the first practical moment, and either cite the person to appear in court or bring him/her in to jail. A person arrested must be brought before a judge for arraignment in a short time (e.g. within two business days), and have his/her bail set. A private "security guard" can not actually arrest someone except by citizen's arrest, but can hold someone briefly until a law officer is summoned. A "citizen's arrest" can be made by any person when a crime has been committed in his/her presence. However, such self-help arrests can lead to lawsuits for "false arrest" if proved to be mistaken, unjustified or involving unnecessary holding. 2) to delay the enforcement of a judgment by a judge while errors in the record are corrected. (See: warrant of arrest, false arrest, probable cause, Miranda warning)

    Read the full definition on this link. 

    [1] crime  
    1. An action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.
    2. Illegal activities: "the victims of crime".
    misdeed - offence - offense - felony - delinquency - sin

    [2] cor·pus de·lic·ti
    The facts and circumstances constituting a breach of a law.
    Concrete evidence of a crime, such as a corpse.