Sui Juris Law - The Self Governing [GET THE BOOK!]

By: Rob JohnsonSui Juris Law - The Self Governing

I could really use a couple sales today. 1 or 2 copies would do the trick. Anyone who has been considering getting the book and has not yet, who does so in the next 8 hours, until 11pm EST, will be able to take advantage of an old deal I was offering, that I no longer offer, but am offering again for this limited time only. I will allow 1 free hour of personal 1 on 1 phone contact time to discuss the subject matter of the book. The book itself while being an excellent source of information in general, for some reason when the things I explain in the book are articulated verbally in several different ways, people really grasp these concepts quicker. All my readers and members, please do all that you can to drive as many people to get my book as possible. This is not just a financially motivated objective, but more so than money, the dissemination of this information at a faster rate is the true goal. The little money I charge compared to the value of the information I offer is just enough to cover costs so I can continue doing this work without having to slave away for someone else, which frees up my time to be here helping people. The more people who get my book, the faster this will all come about, and the sooner we will enjoy a country once again rooted in the rule of law, the respect of each others equal individual sovereignty. 

Those of my readers who have already obtained my book for themselves could also be of great assistance to me here. I KNOW that everyone who has my book loves it, I am asking that those who have already obtained and read it, to perhaps purchase a copy for a friend or family member, someone who would benefit from the knowledge, whether they are already in the cross hairs of bureaucracy or not. It is better for people to come to my work BEFORE the shit hits the fan in their lives, so IF some bullshit with so called law enforcement officers pops off they will be prepared to handle it preemptively.

www.suijurislaw.net
www.suijurislaw.co

Voting IS a waste of Time.

"To make a long story short, in America’s case, the people are sovereigns, served - not ruled- by government unless they consent otherwise. If they consent to be subject citizens, they descend in status to servants of the servant government, and become persons liable. This can be readily seen in the USCON, where “people” have rights and powers, while “citizens” have privileges and immunities."

By: Jeff Ganaposki

Voting IS a waste of Time.

To participate in the democratic form, especially the socialist democratic form, while harboring such goals as smaller government, lower taxes, and more liberty is a total waste. You cannot reform the system in that fashion. It’s like sending a missionary to a pirate ship to get it to change its evil ways. At best, the pleas will fall on deaf ears. At worst, the missionary will walk the plank.

There IS a remedy, but you may not realize it. It goes back to 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. Remember, job #1 is secure rights and job #2 is to govern those who consent. And securing rights simply meant prosecution of deliberate injuries and adjudication of accidental injuries (after the fact). As to being “governed,” those who did not or could not consent, were never subject to the terms of the compacts. But those who did consent, surrendered or waived rights, and could be compelled to perform mandatory civic duties in exchange for the exercise of privileges such as civil and political liberty.

To make a long story short, in America’s case, the people are sovereigns, served - not ruled- by government unless they consent otherwise. If they consent to be subject citizens, they descend in status to servants of the servant government, and become persons liable. This can be readily seen in the USCON, where “people” have rights and powers, while “citizens” have privileges and immunities.

In the 1820s, the people were lured into “joining up” with the democratic form of government and shifted the balance of power, so that the partisan political parties could rise to dominance, power and wealth. Prior to that decade, the only people who could vote and hold office had to own property and have paid taxes - a small subset of the nation. And coincidentally, the only people compelled to perform mandatory civic duties like jury duty and militia duty (the obligation to train, fight, and die, on command) were those same Americans. Everyone else was not so liable nor obligated.

A restoration of the original republican form of government cannot be achieved by the ballot. Waiving rights to participate in the democratic form cannot restore rights. The only remedy is to withdraw consent from the system : from FICA (socialism) and from submission to the democratic form. Examine your local state laws and constitution for proof that American nationals / inhabitants with domiciles who absolutely own private property retain their natural and personal liberty. Verify that private property is not subject to ad valorem taxes as is qualified ownership of estate (real and personal property). Verify that non-residents (inhabitants) are not obligated to register themselves, their property nor get permissions (licenses) before they can exercise their rights and liberties.

Do not be daunted by a lack of explicit mention of those who are not subject to the government. “They” have been carefully running a scam for many many generations. Just tally up the differences between the inhabitants and residents, domiciles and residences, the nationals and the citizens, the sovereigns and the subjects. Once you accumulate enough facts and data, you will be convinced.

"You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy"

Real Criminals Wearing Suits, Costumes, And Robes

What we have is a group of REAL CRIMINALS, wearing suits (attorneys) , uniforms (cops), and black robes (judges), committing REAL TRUE CRIMES, and doing so against LAW ABIDING PEOPLE, wearing the costume of "THE LAW".

By: Rob Johnson

The last week or so for me has been very difficult, and extremely trying, taxing and vexing to say the least. I am at a point where I no longer believe that it is possible to save this country, and the divinely inspired supreme law which used to dwell in each of us. Today the law is USED to oppress the people that it is supposed to protect. Those who are involved in positions of law enforcement, including attorneys and judges, at every level across the country down to each small town and even villages, are completely insane.

That is what it all comes down to, everyone involved in the existing system, that aspect of it which has transformed law and justice from a tool to protect the people and their freedom, into a tool to protect the revenue stream the state has been shamelessly sucking off of for its survival. TODAY, I went with my friend to the Town of Hamburg, regarding a violation ticket he got. He got scheduled a pretrial conference with the town attorney. What is so ridiculous is the irrational, damned near violent, without question unprofessional, and unnecessarily rude manner the assistant town attorney spoke to my friend with. Within a few seconds of entering this "conference room" and asking only 1 question about being scheduled for a trial, my friend asked, "will this be a jury trial", this assistant town attorney became visibly, obviously, and irrationally irate. And he was every bit as ignorant as he was angry.

This pretrial conference was scheduled before his hearing because of the notice he sent in in response to the violation ticket. At this conference, my friend was supposed to be informed as to the cause and nature of the charges and proceedings against him. He did not even get a chance to ask most of his questions. After he asked about the nature of the trial it was evident that this assistant attorney intended to do nothing but attempt to intimidate him. AND, on top of this, he also refused my friend his right to a jury trial.

I have lost faith completely in what is called the justice system today. There is nothing just about it. The courts used to be about getting to the truth of matters, whatever that truth was. LAW itself used to protect the people and their rights, but not any more.

All of this being said, I am not giving up. If nothing else it shows that mass dissemination of my work is essential more so now than ever before. These people that call themselves professionals, experts, and officers, whether they are police, attorneys, or judges, have got to be reminded who it is that they serve, and WHAT law they are to be upholding and enforcing. These delusional mad men who are pretending, that are unaware they are pretending, no different from a schizophrenic, have got to be put in their place. ALL ISSUES ASIDE, no one has a right to, nor is there ever a cause, for someone like this assistant attorney did, to raise their voice to another. Who in the hell do these mother fuckers think they are? They are not even prosecuting crime, or upholding the law, all they are doing is conducting transactions of security interests, extorting from the masses a stream of revenue, out of fear and ignorance. They are manipulative, deceitful, vindictive, and MUST be stopped, and only WE can do it.

People have to decide what it is they wish for themselves and their children. And people have to make a choice, grow some balls, and refuse to capitulate to fear porn propaganda designed to foster their compliance with things that should never be called law. No matter how far they take it, regardless of any concern, I will never quit, I will never give up this fight. I will never be defeated by these people, hell they are not even coming after me.

And when I was in that conference room with my buddy that assistant attorney DID...ATTEMPT..to intimidate ME as well, asking me my name in a malicious tone with obvious malicious intent. When it came to me though I put his ass in his place and told him "don't you worry about what my name is". I wish this would have been my ticket, as opposed to it being my friend's, because he doesn't listen. He asks me to help with these things, brings me with him to help, and then does the exact opposite of what advise him to do. So now, my friend was scheduled a trial date, but we are going to defeat this whole issue with pretrial motions. In addition I am going to file a grievance with the bar against this assistant town attorney, as well as criminal charges for his crimes. He DID violate my friend's right to a jury trial, even after it was insisted upon.
The most disgusting part of all of this, is that all of these so called professionals, having been taught only what the system wants them to believe to continue propping it up, know nothing more about "THE LAW" than the average individual does. For the most part these criminals just make shit up as they go, and the judges rubber stamp it because the judges, lawyers, and cops, are all on the same side. Every single bit of their intimidation, exists to distract you from what you know is true, and to get you to contract with them, it is all about MONEY, it is ALL about taking YOUR money FROM YOU, and giving it to THEM. What exactly do people think that these revenues from violation tickets are used for?

People have got to wake up and come around to the simple truths of the law. They are really really easy to follow. It is only the agenda of the lie which converts justice into a revenue stream, that obfuscates the truth. It doesnt hide the truth all together, it can still be seen. The truth about the law, the beautiful simplicity, is that if you violate no one's rights, and cause no damage or injury to person or property, you have committed NO OFFENSE OF ANY KIND, certainly nothing that could require you to pay money or time to the State. If you have not done either of those things, you have BROKEN NO LAW.

So in these violation ticket situations you do not have criminals being punished by law, nor do you have the State providing a service that does anything at all of any kind to make things safer. What we have is a group of REAL CRIMINALS, wearing suits (attorneys) , uniforms (cops), and black robes (judges), committing REAL TRUE CRIMES, and doing so against LAW ABIDING PEOPLE, wearing the costume of "THE LAW". They deliberately set fines so they arent worth it to most people to fight them. They do this intentionally so it is not worth it for people to take off of work to stand up for their rights. These criminals all across the country can only be stopped by us, in MASS NON COMPLIANCE. And I will ALWAYS be here doing what I do to fight back no matter how discouraged I may get at times. I will never ever stop fighting this fight until the battle is won and the people come out on top with their freedom in tact."

I wonder why no one has claimed this yet?

The People are not required to, but US citizens are. Mrs. Jackson [or any of the people in this clip] has [have] no idea there is a difference between the People and a US citizen. That's why she went to jail.

 

Hell / Hope is for Children.

Hope is for children. Adults don't sit around on the couch watching Honey Boo Boo hoping for change. They go out and make it happen with their actions and words.
- Chris Duke

Hopes are for Dopes

Two words that immediately come to mind in relation to the slave mentality are Hope and Destiny. "We Hope for change" but are unwilling to do anything to make that change happen. Or "Oh well, It's our destiny to work our asses off and pay taxes." FAIL! Destiny implies that you have no free will to change your life for the better. Both are slave ways of thinking. In the box thought patters. 

People enslave themselves threw ignorant consent. They create and build their own prison walls.

Judicial Presumptions

By: ZJ Free

F.Y.I.: It is an unconstitutional violation of due process of law for any judge or prosecutor to "presume" that one may be a franchisee called a "taxpayer" without any supporting evidence. All such presumptions also amount to the establishment of a religion by the government, because they amount to a belief that either is not supported by evidence or is not required to be supported by evidence.

Further, if Federal courts can’t make declaratory judgments relating to federal taxes, then how can they decide that one may be a "taxpayer" who is subject to the franchise agreement to begin with? If they are enjoined from declaring people "taxpayers", then they can’t enforce the franchise agreement against anyone because they can’t determine who is subject to it.

Understand the legal reality, namely that "taxpayer" means "fiduciary" and that has to be asserted at what may be the one and only time to compel "them" judicially to prove up the basis for their purported claim, namely the necessary trust agreement on which their claim depends.

DRIVING is a PROFESSION

By: Rick Carne

At a rapid pace, and mostly hidden from the public, police agencies throughout California have been accumulating millions of license-plate readings from devices placed atop patrol cars and feeding them into intelligence centers operated by local, state and federal law enforcement, the Center for Investigative Reporting has found.

With heightened concern over secret intelligence operations at the National Security Agency, the localized effort to track drivers highlights the extent to which the government has committed to collecting large amounts of data on people who have done nothing wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~

DRIVING is a PROFESSION.

It's a MISDEMEANOR (crime) to "drive" without a license. A cabbie has the SAME EXACT LICENSE AS YOU, CLASS C! The DRIVER LICENSE permits engagement in a REGULATED PROFESSION, DRIVING. If you don't get paid to go to the grocery store or your place of worship in your car then YOU ARE NOT "DRIVING" because "DRIVING" IS A PROFESSION. How can you possibly violate a law that DOES NOT APPLY to you? The Vehicle Code REGULATES THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE. The rules in the Vehicle Code APPLY TO and REGULATE COMMERCE. Look up the word COMMERCE IN A LAW DICTIONARY!

TRAFFIC. Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of
goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. Senior v. Ratterman,
44 Ohio St. 673, 11 N.E. 321; Fine v. Moran, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533, 538; Bruno v. U.S., C.C.A.Mass., 289 F.
649, 655; Kroger Grocery and Baking Co. V. Schwer, 36 Ohio App. 512, 173 N.E. 633. The subjects of
transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vehicles, or
vessels, along a route of transportation, as a long a street, canal etc. United States v. Golden Gate Bridge
and Highway Dist. of California , D.C.Cal., 37 F. Supp. 505, 512.
Black’s Law Dictionary. 4th Ed., p. 1667

COMMERCIAL. Relating to or connected with trade and traffic or commerce in general. “Zante
Currents”, C.C.Cal.,73 F. 189. Occupied with commerce. Bowles v. Co-Operative G. L. F. Farm Products,
D.C.N.Y., 53 F. Supp. 413, 415.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 337

INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Traffic, intercourse, commercial trading, or the transportation of persons
or property between or among the several states of the Union, or from between points in one state and
points in another state; commerce between the states, or between places in different states.
It comprehends all the component parts of commercial intercourse between different states.
[Cites omitted]
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 955

I wonder what might happen if everyone who has a driver license etc, rescinded the contract with the DMV based on fraud. If you or your car are not engaged in the PROFESSION being regulated then you've been DEFRAUDED because DUMB ADULTS MISLEAD YOU.

RESCIND THE CONTRACT
RETURN WHAT THEY ISSUED
(You didn't buy it anyway so it's not yours)
REVOKE YOUR POWER OF ATTORNEY
(Betcha didn't know you granted the DMV your power of attorney as a condition of getting the privilege)

PROCLAMATION

PROCLAMATION
The act of causing some state matters to be published or made generally known. A written or printed document in which are contained such matters, issued by proper authority; as the president's proclamation, the governor's, the mayor's proclamation. The word proclamation is also used to express the public nomination made of any one to a high office; as, such a prince was proclaimed emperor.The president's proclamation has not the force of law, unless when authorized by congress; as if congress were to pass an act, which should take effect upon the happening of a contingent event, which was to be declared by the president by proclamation to hive happened; in this case the proclamation would give the act the force of law, which, till then, it wanted. practice. The declaration made by the cryer, by authority of the court, that something is about to be done.

It usually commences with the French word Oyez, do you hear, in order to attract attention; it is particularly used on the meeting or opening of the court, and at its adjournment; it is also frequently employed to discharge persons who have been accused of crimes or misdemeanors.

And if you don't understand usufruct, yous a fruked!

By: Rick Carne

Where do you think you fit into this in respect to the State...USUFRUCT, in Roman-based legal systems, the temporary right to the use and enjoyment of the property of another, without changing the character of the property. This legal concept developed in Roman law and found significant application in the determination of the property interests between a slave held under a usus fructus (Latin: “use and enjoyment”) bond and a temporary master. Any property acquired by a slave as a result of his labour legally belonged to that master.

Modern civil-law systems recognize two types of usufructs. The perfect usufruct includes only those things that a usufructuary (one who holds property under right of usufruct) can use without changing their substance, such as land, buildings, or movable objects; the substance of the property, however, may be altered naturally over time and by the elements. The quasi-, or imperfect, usufruct includes property that is consumable or expendable, such as money, agricultural products, and the like, which would be of no advantage to the usufructuary if he could not consume them, expend them, or change their substance.

The term usufruct never found its way into the English common law, although certain general similarities can be found in the common-law concept of estate.

Definition from Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition
USUFRUCT, civil law. The right of enjoying a thing, the property of which is vested in another, and to draw from the same all the profit, utility and advantage which it may produce, provided it be without altering the substance of the thing.
2. The obligation of not altering the substance of the thing, however, takes place only in the case of a complete usufruct.

3. Usufructs are of two kinds; perfect and imperfect. Perfect usufruct, which is of things which the usufructuary can enjoy without altering their substance, though their substance may be diminished or deteriorated naturally by time or by the use to which they are applied; as a house, a piece of land, animals, furniture and other movable effects. Imperfect or quasi usufruct, which is of things which would be useless to the usufructuary if be did not consume and expend them, or change the substance of them, as money, grain, liquors. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 525, et seq.; 1 Browne's Civ. Law, 184; Poth. Tr. du Douaire, n. 194; Ayl. Pand. 319; Poth. Pand. tom. 6, p. 91; Lecons El. du Dr. Civ. Rom. 414 Inst. lib. 2, t. 4; Dig. lib. 7, t. 1, 1. 1 Code, lib. 3, t. 33; 1 Bouv. Inst. Theolo. ps. 1, c. 1, art. 2, p. 76.

The Ideal Tyranny

The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.”
~ Charles de Montesquieu

US Presidents before GW.

The Uniform Bonding Code Part 2

The Bonding Problem

    As human population increases and mutual human tolerance decreases, municipal corporations tend to become less sensitive to individual human needs and tend to become more antisocial toward the public.  It has been put crudely that municipal corporations become slaughterhouse operations with law enforcement officers running the sledgehammer department.  Judges ignore the rights of the people and legislators generate heaps of laws, without perfecting the ones already existing to make them fit for bonding.  Defective statutes and defective legal processes become an invitation for every sort of official malpractice and malfeasance including economic oppression, and the public, in retaliation, begins suing for every injury, putting the heat on the bonding companies.

I will be posting another part of this every day. To read the whole article now, here's the link: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-

Carteret County deputy tases tied dog

By William R. Toler

When Rebecka Brown returned home June 5, she noticed a business card stuck in her door.
That card was from Det. Joey Cooper, a deputy with the Carteret County Sheriff’s Office.
“Naturally I called the number immediately to find out why an officer had been here,” she wrote on a Facebook page.
Det. Cooper told her he was there to serve a warrant to her husband for failure to appear in court in relation to a ticket he had received while hunting. She also found out something horrifying.
“He then told me he had to tase my dog.”
When she asked why, Brown says Det. Cooper told her that Merlin, the family’s year-old lab/boxer mix, had attacked him. “I asked him if he was okay… I was in complete shock! He said he was fine, not so much as a scratch on him.”
[Note: Merlin was attached to a 10' lead in the backyard, not roaming freely.]
“He instructed me that the taser did not shock Merlin because only one prong made a connection with him,” she said adding that Det. Cooper told her how to remove the prong. When the call ended, she went to check on her wounded pup. “Merlin wouldn’t let me near him. I could see the prong protruding from his back but but he just cowered and whined,” she said.
After several attempts to coax Merlin over so she could remove the prong, she noticed something strange about his eye. “There was a little blood under the lid of his right eye and the eyeball itself resembled an old rubber party balloon.” After she and a friend removed the prong she noticed his eyeball was ripped open.

Brown said she immediately called Det. Cooper back but got his voicemail. She then called the Sheriff’s Office to report her dog’s injuries. An hour later, she says two deputies showed up to investigate.
“They asked to see Merlin, so I took them inside to him,” she said. “As soon as he saw them, he cowered to the side, wimpered, and started to visibly shake. The deputy took a step towards him and Merlin started to growl. He was responding to the uniform… I informed the deputy that this is not his normal behavior and that he is responding out of fear. A uniform, just like theirs, had seriously injured him…. he was afraid of another round with that uniform!”
She believes the eye injury was caused by either a flashlight or a nightstick.
Brown’s quest for accountability continued.

I tried to file a formal complaint with the Sheriff’s Department and I was shuffled away. I went to the magistrate to press charges for animal cruelty and I was told that I couldn’t because he is a law enforcement officer!!! So, I went to the district attorneys office to lodge a complaint and get an investigation underway. I was directed to the SBI (State Bureau of Investigation).”

She has also taken to the internet for justice starting a website, a Facebook page and a petition. On the Justice for Merlin Facebook page, Brown has been updating those interested in her “roadblocks” with law enforcement and the justice system, as well as Merlin’s recovery.
After multiple calls to District Attorney Scott Thomas, an internal investigation was finally started. On Wednesday, Brown says she was visited by Sheriff Asa Buck and an internal affairs officer.
Following the meeting she posted:

Both the sheriff and internal affairs feel that the investigation revealed that the deputy is without fault. He stated that he was afraid when he and Merlin met in my back yard and that the Deputy is thankful that he grabbed the taser rather than his firearm. I was further informed that the deputy had every legal right to be on the property and had a right to defend himself. They do not believe that the deputy entered my back yard with the intent of harming Merlin and that Merlin’s injuries are an unfortunate situation. After Merlin is done with all of his vet visits, I am to inform the department and they will see about getting the bills paid.
…
I honestly don’t know how I feel about all this. I’m angry that my dog was hurt. I’m very angry that my dog will never regain full sight in that eye. I’m hurt that my children are affected by this to the point that they tell me they are afraid of cops. I’m angry that the use of tasers on animals is endorsed by our county. The county considers this matter closed.
…
I’ve never known the sheriff to be anything but honorable. I am so confused and hurt.

Begin rant:
Justified? Afraid of a dog that was tied up?
There is not justification for harming an animal if you just get spooked. The deputy, according to Brown, admitted that he didn’t have a scratch on him. So how can this assault be justified?
If it had not been a law enforcement officer, the individual responsible for the injuries to Merlin would be brought up on animal cruelty charges. But because of the incestuous investigation, the perp gets to walk.
The Department shouldn’t have to compensate for the vet bills…the individual who committed the act should be the responsible party. Badges don’t grant extra rights and individuals are responsible for their own actions.
End rant.
Carteret County Sheriff’s Office
Sheriff Asa Buck
304 Craven Street
Beaufort, NC 28516
(252) 504-4800
[This post originally appeared at IndieRegister.com]

The Uniform Bonding Code Part 1

The Uniform Bonding Code – (UBC)

Modern Bonding Practice

    With the advent of powerful computers has come the responsibility of analyzing data much more quickly and thoroughly and in terms of the general economic principles of Leontief Input-Output Matrix Analysis.  (See Wassily Leontief, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, and Wassily Leontief, “The World Economy in the Year 2000,” in Scientific American, September 1980.  Wassily Leontief was the 1973 Nobel Prize winner in Economics.)

    

    In the modern system of wagering, as applied to insurance and malpractice bonding, several political-legal-economic factors including Legislation, Judication, Execution (enforcement) and the behavior of the general public are treated mathematically as separate industries within the legal system, with the result that these industries can be interrelated b a system of feedback equations and computations, the individual workings and behavior of each industry can be much more closely monitored, and the behavior of the government and public can be predicted and manipulated.

    This amounts to the application of feedback computing to reliable gambling on the economic success or outcome of any given statute or legal process.  It results in a scientific bonding system, and results in the transfer of the power and authority of government over to the bonding companies where it belongs if governments do not want to behave themselves.  (Money talks, bonding controls.)

I will be posting another part of this every day. To read the whole article now, here's the link: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm

Compulsory Insurance

The bonding of statutes which require natural persons (non-incorporated persons) to purchase insurance, must be very carefully analyzed, and be regarded with the utmost caution. As a general rule, it is against the law for any entity to compel any citizen to pay any wager or premium for the privilege of not being injured or for the privilege of not being threatened with injury (Protection Insurance Racketeering). [Footnote: U.S. R.I.C.O. Laws]

Corporations may be required by the state in which they are incorporated, to purchase public hazard insurance because the corporation, being an artificial/paper person (a legal fiction), is regarded as having no conscience other than the state, making the state as a silent partner of the corporation, financially responsible for the acts of the corporation. (That which the liege-lord giveth, the liege-lord taketh away.) When the benefit which the state gives to the corporation is limited liability, which is a limited commercial responsibility to the commercial public, to a reasonable extent, then the state must protect the commercial public to a reasonable extent from a potential lack of commercial responsibility of the corporation or from a tendency toward a potential lack of commercial responsibility of the corporation, by requiring the corporation to purchase hazard bonding. This requirement protects the public from some losses, and protects the state from some civil liability, by a showing of commercial good faith action.





Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance



Citizens are required to surrender the ultimate title of ownership of their motor vehicles (the manufacturer's statement of origin/MSO) to their respective states in exchange for a certificate of title of ownership and license plates. The state owns the vehicle because it hold the ultimate title to the motor vehicle. The citizen has the permission to use the vehicle. The permission can be revoked at any time by the state.



[Tennessee Department of Revenue Operations Supervisor, Denise Rottero, before Judge Greer. She explained Tennessee's auto registration process.]



The vehicle can be seized and auctioned off to provide revenue for the state. For example, the state of Oregon seizes and auctions citizens' motor vehicles as a penalty for soliciting a prostitute; proving that the auto belongs to the state.



Because the state has the ultimate ownership of all of the vehicles used by all of its citizens, the state also has the ultimate liability for all accidents in which those vehicles become involved. This is a potential reason for the state to compel citizens to purchase motor vehicle insurance. Another reason is obvious. The state is a silent partner in every insurance corporation incorporated in that state, and so, many of the insurance companies within the state are mere alter egos or "second selves" of the state. In this insurance scheme the state makes it mandatory for the citizen to buy a product which the state is selling. The individual state will get part of the insurance business; the interstate insurance companies, regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, will get the remainder of the insurance business.



Also, states need civil malpractice insurance. This sort of insurance comes from "above", from interstate insurance companies and international maritime insurance companies such as Rothschild, so, some states prostitute their legislative power as an inducement to get insurance companies to give them a better payment rate for their own malpractice insurance coverage premiums for their own corporate activities, by compelling citizens to purchase motor vehicle insurance.



In any compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme, a citizen's purchase of motor vehicle insurance is guaranteed by a threat of injury in the form of a suspension of the driver's license, seizure of the vehicle, fines and imprisonment if the citizen does not comply with the state's mandate. This creates the basic fabric of a protection insurance racket, hence a very real credibility problem for insurance and bonding companies.



The bonding problem gets really nasty when a judge compels a citizen to either buy auto insurance or to quite driving "his" (the "citizen's") car. Because a bond or insurance is only a promise to pay and not a tangible product, a citizen can lawfully and rightfully argue that, like a savings and loan or a bank, an insurance bonding/bonding company might not be around when damage is done and it is time for a claim payoff. Therefore the citizen can lawfully guarantee the auto insurance policy by putting a common law lien on enough of the property of the law enforcement officer and the judge to cover the face value of the insurance policy.



"This commercial lien cannot be removed."



"A federal R.I.C.O. action against the enforcement officer and the judge can also compel them to pay all of the premiums for all of the persons whom they have compelled to buy insurance."



The voluntary purchasing of motor vehicle insurance is smart. It is a good investment. But compulsory purchase of any sort of insurance in order to continue the daily act of living is protection insurance racketeering. Any bonding company which bonds compulsory motor vehicle insurance statutes is going to have big unresolvable problems, and any officer or judge who enforces compulsory motor vehicle insurance statutes is laying himself wide open to economic ruin.

TAX TALK

But WHO IS THE PEOPLE? Not the US citizens. The citizens are NOT a party to the founding compact. The gov has never been the servant of it's citizens. It's obviously the other way around. Even Hellen Keller could see that! Look at what's going on and see it for yourself or be a happy slave and shut up. Only the People and their Posterity have control over gov and don't pay taxes except on imports. A citizen is only a subject to government. By consent! Keep this in mind while watching this video.

Haha, no kidding.

Illegal Everything

Common myth is that all these statutes, regulations, acts, and codes are law. They are only law if you consent to them.

How many times do we hear about this?

Cop Block Meme.

How many times do we hear about this?
TOO MANY!
-JB

Best comment Quote: "Sooner or later a cop is going to shoot a dog, then be surprised when the dog's owner shoots him."

The Uncle Ernie Scenario, but with money. (The Who Uncle Ernie)

Did you know that you are involved in the most massive Ponzi scheme that has ever existed?  To illustrate my point, allow me to tell you a little story.  Once upon a time, there was a man named Sam.  When he was younger, he had been a very principled young man that had worked incredibly hard and that had built a large number of tremendously successful businesses.  He became fabulously wealthy and he accumulated far more gold than anyone else on the planet.  But when he started to get a little older he forgot the values of his youth.  He started making really bad decisions and some of his relatives started to take advantage of him.  One particularly devious relative was a nephew named Fred.  One day Fred approached his uncle Sam with a scheme that his friends the bankers had come up with.  What happened next would change the course of Sam's life forever.

Read the rest of the story here: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-biggest-ponzi-scheme-in-the-history-of-the-world 

Philadelphia Police Purchase and Plant Drugs, Split Proceeds of Robberies

Posted on 24 June 2013 On Cop Block.

Once again, those who have badges believe they have special rights – and are probably shocked and offended when they are actually held accountable.
Two Philadelphia police officers have been arrested and charged in trafficking  drugs and robbing alleged drug dealers while in uniform. According to a Grand Jury Indictment, Officers Jonathan Garcia and Sydemy Joanis stopped and searched people, and stole their drugs, while on duty and in full uniform.
Purportedly, these two officers bought drugs from  various dealers  and would plant crack cocaine inside dealers’ cars. The officers split the proceeds of the robberies between  themselves. More here.

Big Brother, Little Brother

Ed "Big Daddy" Roth

Special Rights Do NOT Exist When You Put On A Costume

Ponzi Scheme Social Security

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security, but your employer did, too. It totals 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again!

Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?

We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an ENTITLEMENT when we reach the age to take it back.

If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. If you have a deceased spouses who died in their 50's -- their S.S. money will never have one cent drawn from what they paid into S.S. all their lives over the past 30 years!

THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

Remember Congressional benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare!!! And they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?!?

We're "broke" and we can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, or Homeless.
Yet in the last few months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile and Turkey. And now Pakistan......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS... if not TRILLIONS of DOLLARS are unaccounted for!!!

They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.

Political correctness

Robert Menard via Facebook 

There's an annual contest at the Griffiths University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

This year's term was “political correctness”.

The winning student wrote:

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.”

This calls them laws, but they are not, they are code.

by Ray Cox (Notes) on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 7:53pm

HERE ARE LAWS IN AMERICA MOST DON'T KNOW, BUT SHOULD
The IRS is not a US government agency it is an agency of the IMF (International Monetary Fund)(Diversified Metal Products v I.R.S et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Sen...ate report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391)

The IMF (International Monetary Fund) is an agency of the U.N.(Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)

The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921(41 Stat. Ch 214 page 654)
The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF (International Monetary Fund)(Presidential Documents Volume 24-No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-2887)
The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States! No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over.
(Executive Order 12803)
The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA, and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the U.S. government. Even though the "U.S. Government" held stock in the agencies.(U.S. v Strang, 254 US491 Lewis v. US, 680 F.2nd, 1239)
Social Security Numbers are issued by the U.N. through the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 Form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are Department of the Treasury.(20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111 Subpart B. 422.103 (b))
There are NO Judicial courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes.(FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat 138-178)
There have NOT been any judges in America since 1789. There have just been administrators.(FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1 Stat. 138-178)
According to GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) you MUST have a Social Security number.(House Report (103-826)
New York City is defined in Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that "New York City is the capital of the World." For once, he told the truth.(20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111, subpart B 44.103 (b) (2) (2) )
Social Security is not insurance or a contract. Nor is there a Trust Fund.(Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619 Steward Co. v. Davis 301 US 548)
Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF (International Monetary Fund), which is an agency of the United Nations.(It says U.S. Department of Treasury at the top left corner, which again is part of the U.N. as pointed out above)
You own NO property, Slaves can't own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours. you are listed as a TENANT.(Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)
The Most powerful court in America is NOT the United States Supreme court, but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.(42 PA. C.S.A. 502)
The King of England financially backed both sides of the American Revolutionary War.(Treaty of Versailles-July 16, 1782 Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)
You CANNOT use the U.S. Constitution to defend yourself because you are NOT a party to it.(Padelford Fay & Co. v The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)
America is a British Colony. The 'United States' is a corporation, not a land mass and it existed before the Revolutionary War and the British Troops did not leave until 1796(Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774)
Britain is owned by the Vatican.(Treaty of 1213)
The Pope can abolish any law in the United States(Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1, 53-54)
A 1040 Form is for Tribute paid to Britain(IRS Publication 6209)
The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery.(Papal Bulls of 1495 & 1493)
The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of Millions of people.(Papal Bulls of 1455 & 1493)
The Pope's laws are obligatory on everyone.(Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix, c. vii, n. 4. Prati, 1844 Syllabus Prop 28, 29, 44)
We are slaves and own absolutely nothing, NOT even what we think are our children.(Tillman vs. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten vs. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 438 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)
Military Dictator George Washington divided up the States (Estates) into Districts(Messages and papers of the Presidents Volume 1 page 99 1828 Dictionary of Estate)
"The People" does NOT include you and me.(Barron vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243)
It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect THE CORPORATION and arrest code breakers.(SAPP vs. Tallahassee, 348

Constitutional Peasant

Arthur:	I am your king!
Woman:	Well, I didn't vote for you.
Arthur:	You don't vote for kings.
Woman:	Well, how did you become King, then?
Arthur:	The Lady of the Lake,... [angels sing] ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
Dennis:	Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur:	Be quiet!
Dennis:	Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur:	Shut up!
Dennis:	I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur:	Shut up, will you? Shut up!
Dennis:	Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Arthur:	Shut up!
Dennis:	Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Arthur:	Bloody peasant!
Dennis:	Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

So, why don't we just run out with our guns and murder all the bastards we consider oppressive government?

One name: Spartacus [part 1]

  While it's true that this Thracian Gladiator Slave led a very successful armed rebellion in old Rome, the result was somewhat less than a spectacular success. While technically he won the battles, there was never an end in sight. No strategy beyond the next fight. No plan to actually win the war he began. So ultimately he was defeated.


  Sure, everyone can run out with their guns and get their pound of flesh, but to what end? Even if DC were to be stricken from the map along with every STATE capital, where would we be? Right back at the start. And if you think these bastard pigs are bad now, just wait till ya get a load of the standing army that we would have then! Kiss any adhesion or pretend following of the rule of Posse Commantatus goodbye forever! Hmmm, gee wizz Beaver, could that be the plan? 

  
  There are two main groups of people in this world. Those who understand their sovereign rights, and those who don't. From here on out, for the rest of this story, I will refer to those who do not know their rights as slaves. It's funny how those who choose to remain ignorant of the law believe that slavery has been abolished everywhere except for some dark and unknown third world country. It's actually much more prevalent in first world countries. While the whips and chains, for the most part, have been done away with, the citizenry have been tricked into consensual slavery. They loudly proclaim how free they are, while not having a single clue what their rights are. Or for that matter, the difference between a right and a civil liberty.

Too be continued.........

Great Idea!

Jefferson vs. Lincoln

Lets not forget that Lincoln was not even qualified to be president having pledged an oath to the BAR legal society of England and received the title of Esquire.

Eddie Craig

You NEVER see anything from the AJ clown show posted by me. This one with Eddie Craig is the single exception to my rule. Infowars makes my skin crawl. I'm sure some kittens and puppies are dying somewhere because I'm watching this.

I've been shouting out this other Eddie Craig broadcast for the past few weeks over on Facebook as well as here on the blog. This one is also on the side bar. I suggest EVERYONE watch both of these video's over and over until all of the information is memorized.



I'll be adding the top video to the sidebar as well so you can always find it by visiting this blog.

One more appearance on infowars.

Just for laughs.

Frederick Douglass

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
- Frederick Douglass 

Right to Travel

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,

HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS


By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

Simple Question "When Should You Shoot A Cop?"

And the follow up video where Larken attempts to talk to a fascist cop.




Larken's video response to the original article.

The Tiny Dot (Gov)

An American Sovereign

If your on Facebook, you need to go check out Jeff's page.

By: Jeff Ganaposki  Republican Form of Government

Since involuntary servitude is abolished by the 13th amendment, and prior to that, the Declaration of Independence, wherein it states governments are instituted among men to SECURE RIGHTS (i.e., life and liberty) it is clear that citizenship cannot be imposed by birth on a free people.

A free people may consent, and assert citizenship, thus voluntarily step down in status, accept the civic duties, in exchange for political liberties.

By this, we can reason that American people were born with the birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence, the blessings of the republican form of government, and the natural and personal liberty associated with that status.

Thus, the American national, free inhabitant, domiciled within the boundaries of the united States of America, was and is an American sovereign, master of his domain, and subject of no one.

Legal arguments aside, it was once common knowledge that Americans were sovereigns. And it explains why Americans did not bow nor kneel to foreign monarchs, being their social equals. And it also explains why “common” Americans could marry foreign nobility and not violate their local laws barring marriages to “commoners.”
.................................................................
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................................
His audience knew what an “American sovereign” was, to understand the joke. But today’s audience would be clueless.

The Jones Plantation

Money

"Do you wish to know when that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that tradings done, not by consent, but by Compulsion -- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing -- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors -- when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you -- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming
self-sacrifice -- you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot."

-- Ayn Rand

Conflict Of Interests

So I'm left to assume that both Washington and the courts had a conflict of interests with conflict of interest laws.
- Chris Duke

So you wanna be a gangster / pirate?