Protesting By Consenting Subjects

 

Here's a great example of citizens asking to get a spanking. Actually, for a citizen to say this could be construed as treason.

 

The bill of rights only tells gov to leave the rights of the People alone. Citizens gave up those rights when they consented to be governed. So when you see a protester arrested, and they are complaining that their rights have been violated, what has really happened is their 'civil liberties' (privileges) have not been respected. They can try to sue over it so long as the illusion that civil liberties / civil rights are the same thing as natural rights, protected by the bill of rights, is still being maintained. To 'PROTEST' 'YOUR GOVERNMENT,' think about the words your using. By taking part in 'protesting' what your doing is saying "I'm a bad little subject and want to be punished." "I am standing UNDER your authority by my own consent." If you want to beg your masters to change their ways, your gonna get spanked. They are not YOUR public servants when you consent to stand UNDER them! At that point they become your masters and ya better do as they tell you.

Learn ALL About Right To Travel In The UNITED STATES

I didn't realize I have compiled so much information on this subject here on the blog. In reply to a friends request for information on the subject, I went threw all of the posts that deal with Right To Travel. Here they all are:

The United States code expressly defines the term Motor Vehicle: http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-united-states-code-expressly.html

 

 The Right to Travel Freely is Guaranteed http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-right-to-travel-freely-is-guaranteed.html

 

 The People are not bound by statute! http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-people-are-not-bound-by-statute.html

 

 The DMV scam: How your right to travel has been converted into a mere privilege. http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-dmv-scam-how-your-right-to-travel.html

 

THE UNALIENABLE RIGHT OF TRAVEL BY CAR, aka HOUSEHOLD GOOD http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-unalienable-right-of-travel-by-car.html

 

 Supreme Court Decisions which pertain to the Right to Travel http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/09/supreme-court-decisions-which-pertain.html

 

 Right to Travel http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/06/right-to-travel.html

 

 RIGHT TO TRAVEL vs PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE (U.S.) http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/09/right-to-travel-vs-priviledge-to-drive.html

 

 License and Registration, the conversion of natural unaleinable individual rights into micromanaged, monitored mere privileges. http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/07/license-and-registration-conversion-of.html

 

 DRIVING is a PROFESSION http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/06/driving-is-profession.html

 

 Complete Freedom Of The Highways http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/09/complete-freedom-of-highways.html

 

 

Contracts, Privileges, Sovereignty, Liability, and Rights

By: Rob Johnson

While my internet was down last week, I had the chance to read Rob's book 'Sui Juris Law' for the second time. I've been meaning to write a detailed review of the book to post here on the blog, and have been wanting to read it again anyway. I will be writing that review sometime in the next couple weeks, but for now let it just be said that it's a good book and I recommend reading it. 

THE very MOST important thing to understand about SOVEREIGNTY, and claiming and exercising it in stead of CITIZENSHIP, is that CITIZENSHIP is a contract where the would be prospective citizen pledges an oath of allegiance in exchange for a duty of protection. That most important thing to understand is that the duty of protection is an illusion, it doesnt exist, because government has asserted no duty to protect ANYONE. The fact is and this is the fear that most people approaching sovereignty are accosted by that manipulates people into keeping their distance away from sovereignty and holding, clinging desperately TO citizenship, and so here it is.

The fact is that ALL individuals BORN here have a fundamental BIRTHRIGHT to exist here, and that ALL individuals are entitled to ALL of the protections afforded to anyone by LAW, natural freedom, individual autonomous rights, and JUSTICE above all. The fact is that ALL individuals are entitled to the protections of LAW, these protections are NOT what is exchanged in citizenship for allegiance, those protections are of LIMITED LIABILITY. So, to clarify, those who are SOVEREIGN, and refuse to contract for CITIZENSHIP, have not LOST ANY of the protections of LAW, they only lose protections of LIMITED LIABILITY. So one who is sovereign MUST accept a great deal of personal responsibility for their own actions to ensure that they cause no harm to anyone while exercising rights. It si a BIG responsibility but not all that difficult to fulfill. Simply using common sense in most cases is sufficient. The problem is that government wants people to believe that only CITIZENS are afforded the protections of law with respect to their rights, but this is completely false, utter fabrication, and bald faced LIES. The fact is that you are not OBLIGATED to BECOME a CITIZEN to secure the protections of LAW, you were BORN with them. The only protection you secure via citizenship are FINANCIAL in nature, of LIMITED LIABILITY. LIABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY are very different things. RESPONSIBILITY is a common law attribute, LIABILITY is an attribute of maritime admiralty equity.

This is important because the State has recently gotten it into its head that it can strip all rights from an individual by stripping their citizenship, and to do so require NO EVIDENCE per NDAA, and a mere ACCUSATION of "terrorism" can now be used like a modern day witch hunt to crucify anyone who disagrees with anythign the State does. It is true that the State can strip the CITIZENSHIP of ANY citizen and as such they can remove ALL of the PRIVILEGES accompanying citizenship, privileges which identically mimic RIGHTS. The fact of the matter however is that NO entity can strip the SOVEREIGNTY of another. It is as true today as it was over 235 years ago that ONLY a JURY can remove RIGHTS from an individual. So as much as NDAA wants to purport, it is NOT TRUE, government CANNOT remove the rights of an individual nor the protections of due process of law, all they can do is manipulate people into believing and agreeing in contract with a court that they can do so. In reality it is the individual that strips themselves of their rights, not the state doing it, the State is just the puppeteer pulling at the strings of the most primal survival mechanisms.

So the truth is the exact opposite once again as what most people are programmed to believe. And that single most important fact in summation, is that claiming SOVEREIGNTY and rejecting CITIZENSHIP, is that one does not WAIVE, or LOSE, the most fundamental protections of their rights, which literally ARE the law, the very highest law, by claiming sovereignty and rejecting citizenship. The truth is that ACCEPTING citizenship is where you waive all RIGHTS and protections of LAW, and VOLUNTARILY so in CONTRACT, exchanging them for mere PRIVILEGED PROTECTIONS OF LIMITED LIABILITY, NOT the other way around like they want you to believe. Absent a jury only your consent can remove your rights and exchange them for these privileges which CAN be stripped or revoked at any time by the grantor. ALL privileges can be revoked at any time by the grantor where as RIGHTS are absolute, and untouchable.

For example. I own a home with a front lawn. My neighbor and I are friends. I permit my neighbor to cut across my lawn extending a privilege, so he does not have to walk all the way around. The fact that I have extended a privilege does not OBLIGATE ME the GRANTOR to continue to extend that privilege. ANY day I choose I can revoke the privilege and refuse to allow my neighbor the privilege of crossing my property. I can do this for ANY reason, or NO reason. On the other hand, there is NOTHING I can do to stop my neighbor from doing what they want on THEIR property. They have a right to exist on THEIR property, and a PRIVILEGE to exist temporarily upon MY property per the privilege extended. This is a FORM of contract, it is an agreement, which is all ANY contract is. A contract is simply an agreement with terms clearly established in writing.

So again after detailing completely as I have done, in summary, an individual claiming sovereignty is actually in a BETTER position to avoid having their rights violated, and actually has recourse if they are, where as a citizen can have their privileges removed at any time. Violating someone's privileges is not an actionable offense, there is no recourse for citizens against their grantors, just as my neighbor has no recourse to complain if I revoke his privilege to cut across my lawn. I hope this puts things into perspective well. THIS is the nature of sovereignty, and exercising these rights as well as defending them is the very heart and essence of what Sui Juris Law is all about.
Get the book here!  www.suijurislaw.co

Just whom may take advantage of constitutionally protected rights in their own defense?

 

 Notice how it reads 'We the People' and NOT We the US citizens.

There are laws, and then there are rules. I see people complaining about statutory rules all the time that are not laws, and need not comply with the constitutional restrictions on government. The constitution ONLY limits the government from enacting unconstitutional laws against the People. It does NOT limit governments ability to enact rules for their subjects that they themselves MUST obey.  Until you realize this, you can read all the law books, statutes, acts, etc until your eyes bleed, but it won't do you much good.

If your just now waking up to what allows government to get away with doing what they have been doing, then let me point out one simple truth to you. If you are a US citizen, then you ARE considered an employee of government. A trustee. A dependent. As such, you are not governed by law, but rather by rules. Once you realize the different statuses between the People, and UNITED STATES citizens, everything suddenly becomes a lot clearer. 

The US government is a corporation, and as such has rules their employees must follow. Just like at Walmart. If your an employee, you most follow their rules when at work. These rules are NOT laws, as customers to the store are not required to follow them. Think of it this way, US citizens = Walmart employees, and the People = the customers. US citizens have acts and statutes to govern them as children of mother and father big brother gov. As US citizens, you do not have rights. You ONLY have privileges handed down to you by your mother and father gov. You are considered to be a child dependent on gov. Incapable of handling your own affairs, or providing for yourself. The People on the other hand, are considered adults, capable of handling their own affairs and providing for themselves.  The People take no benefits from their creation, gov. They are the ones who lay out the rules for government. 

There are also international laws which regulate government. These laws deal in commerce. Remember, gov is a corporation and must obey the rules of commerce. The Law Of Nations comprises most of these international laws, and it is written into the Declaration Of Independence. It is no more than a footnote, but having been written into the compact, becomes a whole part to that compact. 

Below, lists the law set up to regulate government by the People to protect themselves from a potentially overreaching government. It does NOT apply to US citizens. US citizens are NOT a party to it! 
Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah
14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64)

"No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it."

[5.] The Constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the makers of it at the time when they made it.
[6.] This sense is expressed by the four following propositions:

2. That the Constitution delegated to the General Government, or any department thereof, no power by implication, but only delegated such powers as it expressly enumerated.
3. That it delegated no exclusive power, unless the delegation was said to be exclusive.
4. That it laid no prohibition upon the States, except such as it specified.
5. That the words used in it, if susceptible of more meanings than one, were used in the meaning which was least favorable to the delegation of power, and most favorable to its retention.

Get this fact threw your head, and the entire mess begins to unravel before your very eyes.

 

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

 

How much sour milk does one need to drink before they discover that the nanny States tit is bad?

I was just going over some old posts here when I realized this meme deserved some commentary and I had given it none. I shared it on fellow freedom advocate Robert Menard's Facebook page. Thought I would just copy and paste the post here.

 

Why Sovereignty may be a doomed concept for the masses.
Like you've said Robert, people need to grow up and get out from under their (governments) roof and on their own. Most people buying the big lie, when they turn 18, just trade in their natural parents for government. They go from being a dependent of their parents to being a dependent of the machine / fiction / State. Government becomes both mother and father threw that dependency. So long as they continue providing the State with their consent to be dependent on the State, they trade in their sovereign rights for privileges and are treated as children. When they complain, they are then punished like children. Running with scissors is not a crime, but it may get you a spanking if you get caught doing it if you remain a dependent child / STATE citizen.

 Instead of using the term 'wake up' I prefer using the term 'grow up' for that reason. A child can be awake, but still is a child dependent on mother and father.

Drivers Licensing / Government ID "Peace Officers Not So Peaceful"

Also checkout "How To Make Your Own Lawful ID" here:
http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/09/making-your-own-official-id.html

Some other links to the Drivers License issue:
http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/09/proof-that-drivers-licenses-are-mere.html http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/09/driving-is-profession.html
http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/07/license-and-registration-conversion-of.html
http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/07/eddie-craigs-tao-of-law-website.html
http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/06/right-to-travel.html
http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/06/your-car-is-not-motor-vehicle.html
http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/08/police-policy-enforcement-officers-are.html
http://accountabilityforpeople.blogspot.com/2013/07/car-titles.html

US citizens, DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!

Only the People have rights.
US corporate 14th amendment citizens only have civil liberties. Not rights but only privileges / licensed permissions that can be taken away at the drop of a pin heads or pigs pen.
So what are you? Who are you?
Are you a US Union subject, or an American? Real Americans are NOT US citizens. US citizens are cannon fodder and slaves to the government they consent to!
If you don't get what I'm saying, feel free to ask.
I promise to not piss on your parade, unless ya get uppedy with me about it. if you do, then your just fucked!