Welcome, Guest

 or  Register
NewsFeed

The Constitution does not grant Rights. It limits Government. Plus, the 1776 Continental Dollar
#11
The governments know people are waking up to their word games, and are desperate to keep the power they have, so they send out the shills.

You didn't sign the Constitution, you are not beholden to it. The Declaration is a far more powerful document, but ultimately no piece of paper is above the living being. If you didn't have a say in the forging of a contract, why would you think you are a party to it?

Public servants don't get to tell the public what to do. People have been fooled into thinking we are supposed to elect politicians to government so they can pass laws. That is a lie, a governments main job is to protect our rights, not dictate them.


ASOG
Scent of Cedar, T-Dub, WNC  likes this!
Reply Share
#12
The Legacy Abandoned
Abandonment of the greatest estate bequeathed to mankind in the history of the world
.


by Burness Speakmen

   The constitution granted the government the power to administrate and carry on Corporate functions. Under the Common Law, inherent Rights cannot devolve to a “body politic” through a corporation. Rights only devolve to human beings (as a body politic) through and by way of a “Trust”. Under Constitutional law in order to determine the meaning of a written instrument a court must look to the title. In our case it is the Preamble. The Preamble clearly shows a Freehold/ feesimple absolute in it. (Pursuant to the Laws of Real Property that have been in existence since day one.) Freeholds/feesimples were instruments of Trust not corporate. Since it states “our posterity” it cannot be speaking of a corporate entity as posterity only can mean a human being by birth. The posterity or heirs cannot be defined as it would invalidate the meaning of a freehold/feesimple absolute. When the 14th Amendment was invoked in 1868 it was still valid under the laws of Real property. (whether or not it was legally ratified or not) it established a trust of a different nature. (no one can defeat it because the subject has never been brought up). It was still a Freehold but with the ability to be changed and lessened under the laws of Real Property. This is because it defines the heirs as those subject to the jurisdiction of the congress. Now you may say, how can this be. Go back to the fact that Rights cannot devolve to a body politic by way of corporation, but the freehold in the 14th Amendment can be lessened piece by piece because its workings are subject to the Jurisdiction of the congress. After time, it no longer is a Freehold but an estate of Tenancy. All of America has been reduced to this Tenancy and no one can understand what has happened to the Rights they were told they had. Since early on in the 1900s people were told they were receiving “Equality” but never told equal to what. The 14th Amendment Freehold was supposed to be “Equal” to the Preamble Freehold and so it was for approximately 30-40 years. People forgot the civil war, they forgot the 11 southern states that were denied their equal footing and thrown out of the legislature. The United states of America was overthrown in 1868 and a new form of government put in its place. No one ever noticed because they had forgotten that the founding fathers fought for Inherent Rights not taxation without representation.

   The government states that the Constitution is a grant of power and that is correct, but to perform corporate functions, which is the Office of Profit, everyone misses the Key words in the document like "office of Trust" along with that office of profit. No one seems to see it, as if it is invisible and has no meaning, but IT is the creator. They also miss the words about the jury trial and words of "common law". No one invokes the common law because the laws established under the 14th amendment are not common law, but they cannot be in conflict with it, and they aren't. People do not know who they are and where they came from, why they are here, and where their Rights come from. The Amendments are a restatement of rights but under the 14th amendment they are ONLY a codicil that changes the intentions of the founding fathers. Thus Civil Rights.

   To invoke the common law one must ask the administrators which office they represent (office of trust or office of profit), inform them they are trustees of the trust you are a beneficiary/legatee/heir of, tell them where the Trust resides, inform them that Rights do not devolve through an office of profit, that they would be in breach of trust if they continue to follow their proceedings as is, and that as an Heir you are invoking the Common Law of England as it stands in this country.

   Under Constitutional Law a court — ANY court, MUST look toward the Trust first and make determinations from that point, not statutory law.
Celebrating 25 Years as a Designated " Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Scent of Cedar  likes this!
Reply Share
#13
(05-15-2018, 08:45 PM)Guest Wrote:
(05-15-2018, 10:14 AM)Scent of Cedar Wrote: [Image: CNNYSYQHSEI6RFHI5C4GACW6EM.jpg]

Good Morning, Everyone!

From the Q Research Board this morning, and so beautifully done that I wanted you to see it, too.

First this:

https://www.greatamericancoincompany.com...ugio-Cent/

"The images on the coin were based on the design by Benjamin Franklin for the paper currency that was in issue at the time. The obverse featured a sun shining down on a sundial with the latin word “Fugio” (I fly) next to it with the legend “Mind Your Business” at the bottom. Historians believe that Franklin put this in due to him being a successful businessman and was supposed to be a saying such as time flies so mind your business. The reverse side featured 13 linked rings each labeled with the name of one of the original 13 colonies surrounding a sun containing the words “AMERICAN CONGRESS” and “WE ARE ONE.”

Then, this:  (Written by an anon from Q Research.)


[Image: ed017a4d25e2b19f496e5544f427ddaf1431c097...6ed335.jpg]



1776: The year the United States of America was born.

The Declaration of Independence is a natural law document.

It was the first official act of the nation.

"It is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence"

"The Constitution cannot, then, be interpreted as though it were the foundation of constitutional law, in the absence of principles derived from the Declaration."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

America was never forgiven for the revolution by (((them))) because they know it's the only country founded upon the embodiment of freedom… natural and individual rights!

What people are forgetting is that the Constution is a negative rights document. It limits the government, it does not grant any rights!

For example, the 2nd amendment is about defense against tyranny. You could remove the 2nd and we would still have the right to bear arms because self-defense is a natural right! This is what (((they))) have tried to remove from education and civics…

Individual rights was the revolution then, it is now, and it always will be, the prime directive of freedom, and of free peoples, and of free countries.

Rights do not defend themselves though! Now is the time, to stand up, to speak out, to speak well, and to rouse the hearts of our fellow countrymen into the 21st century American revolution of these great United States of America, in order to continue to defend freedom, so as to be once again the shining beacon on the hill for the world, dim for a time, will be blinding bright!

May "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." to this cause!

****

Kiss

Cedar

Smileyfud

Sorry, but you are incorrect.

The United States was not born on July 4, 1776.

The United States was not born until 1789, when the Constitution was ratified by 9 of the 13 formerly British colonies.

The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document, nor does it provide any guarantees. It is nothing more than a written document that serves as a reminder that campaign promises don’t mean shit.

The 2nd Amendment is not about tyranny or self defense, but is a provision for a citizen based militia to serve a new government that had yet to establish a standing military force until 1791 for the Army, 1794 for the Navy and Marines. (These are official Acts of Congress and truly establish creation dates regardless of claims by the military claiming 1775 origins with the Continental Military Organizations) A policy that would continue to serve a purpose during the years of westward expansion into new unexplored territory where the United States Government was unable to provide for the defense of it’s citizens.

James Madison argued in Federalist#46, (1788) that State Militias could keep a Federal Military in check to stave off Federal overreach, an argument that is often used in defense of the 2nd Amendment, however the Federalist papers are not law. The Federalist Papers are not protected or guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Most of all, The Federalist Papers are nothing more than opinion editorials used as campaign promises, which for the most part were followed through upon with the passing and subsequent ratification of The Bill of Rights.

Your self defense argument is based upon a confusion between the 2nd Amendment to The United States Constitution and the 1689 English Act of Parliament “Bill of Rights” delivered to William of Orange (William III) and Mary II, inviting foreign Protestants to rule under a co-regency. This is not really surprising since much of your arguments seem to be pulled from the Sovereign Citizen/Freemen of the Land playbook; idiots who love to claim their “English Common Law” arguments are valid when attacking United States laws as if English law and US Constitution law are synonymous.

Here is a tip for future reference; stop watching YouTube videos and reading conspiracy websites for your “facts” and opinions. Think for yourself instead of mimicking retards who pretend to be smart. Understand the laws of the country to which you were born, and the story behind the creation of those laws.

Wink

Perhaps you do not understand the concept being explored.  

For your edification, the concept being explored goes like this:

"Civilization is not contagious, not accidental, not a whim of geography.  It doesn't spill over or infect; it is a deliberative act: We will have art, we will rise to advanced thought, we will surpass our normal venality, we will walk on the Western slopes."

Gospel
Barnhardt  


Kiss
Heir, Sassy Fringette  likes this!
Reply Share
#14
(05-16-2018, 10:58 AM)Guest Wrote: You didn't sign the Constitution, you are not beholden to it. * * * If you didn't have a say in the forging of a contract, why would you think you are a party to it

Ah . . . a Lysander Spooner / Unitarian / Anarchist point of view .

I doubt many have Signed or otherwise Subscribed Their Grandparent's Last Will and Testament either .

And I am not "beholden " to It . Those on the Payroll are , and Answerable to the Cestui Cue .
Celebrating 25 Years as a Designated " Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Reply Share
#15
(05-16-2018, 03:30 AM)Guest Wrote:
(05-15-2018, 08:57 PM)Angry Red Man Wrote:
(05-15-2018, 08:45 PM)Guest Wrote: Sorry, but you are incorrect.

The United States was not born on July 4, 1776.

The United States was not born until 1789, when the Constitution was ratified by 9 of the 13 formerly British colonies.

The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document, nor does it provide any guarantees. It is nothing more than a written document that serves as a reminder that campaign promises don’t mean shit.

The 2nd Amendment is not about tyranny or self defense, but is a provision for a citizen based militia to serve a new government that had yet to establish a standing military force until 1791 for the Army, 1794 for the Navy and Marines. (These are official Acts of Congress and truly establish creation dates regardless of claims by the military claiming 1775 origins with the Continental Military Organizations) A policy that would continue to serve a purpose during the years of westward expansion into new unexplored territory where the United States Government was unable to provide for the defense of it’s citizens.

James Madison argued in Federalist#46, (1788) that State Militias could keep a Federal Military in check to stave off Federal overreach, an argument that is often used in defense of the 2nd Amendment, however the Federalist papers are not law. The Federalist Papers are not protected or guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Most of all, The Federalist Papers are nothing more than opinion editorials used as campaign promises, which for the most part were followed through upon with the passing and subsequent ratification of The Bill of Rights.

Your self defense argument is based upon a confusion between the 2nd Amendment to The United States Constitution and the 1689 English Act of Parliament “Bill of Rights” delivered to William of Orange (William III) and Mary II, inviting foreign Protestants to rule under a co-regency. This is not really surprising since much of your arguments seem to be pulled from the Sovereign Citizen/Freemen of the Land playbook; idiots who love to claim their “English Common Law” arguments are valid when attacking United States laws as if English law and US Constitution law are synonymous.

Here is a tip for future reference; stop watching YouTube videos and reading conspiracy websites for your “facts” and opinions. Think for yourself instead of mimicking retards who pretend to be smart. Understand the laws of the country to which you were born, and the story behind the creation of those laws.

Source your information.

Oh right you are.

So sorry that direct references to information are not worthy sources, yet an OP can post a link to a commercial entity and fill a page of opinion without any sources to back up his claims.

What good are sources, footnotes, endnotes or links to individuals who will immediately respond with claims of “propaganda”.

Hey, I get it. I really do. Your mindset convinces you that your way of thinking is right, and any opposing views are wrong. Your way of thinking can not possibly be wrong because admitting you are wrong is just beyond comprehension.

There are only a few natural laws. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not among them. Those are man-made constructs of the weak. Survival of the fittest and might makes right are the only natural laws and possessing a firearm does nothing but temporarily subvert those truths.

A gun will not save you from illness. A gun will not save you from disease. A gun will not protect you from a contaminated water supply or tainted food source. A gun will not save you from fire. A gun will only protect your life and property until you are too weak to hold your gun.

Abrahamic religions are the religion of slaves. They even demand subservience before God. Religion makes slaves and are promoted by the weak. When the weak are many, they appear strong, but in times of crisis the weak always bow to the will of the mighty.

There are no inalienable rights bestowed by the creator because the creator is a myth promoted upon the weak.

You hate the evil corrupt government because you are slaves, and you know that without the government you so desperately despise; that is constantly stealing your freedoms; you would be nothing but a victim of those that are more powerful than you. Those who have no morals fostered upon their mentality by their voluntary enslavement.

Society creates words like psychopath and sociopath to describe human beings who live according to their animal instincts and nature. A well fed lion that kills for no other purpose except for “because it can” is not a psychopath or a sociopath. It is merely a lion.

With no government to protect your rights, to enforce society’s “laws”, men will become lions and kill with no other purpose other than “because they can!” Who will stop them. You with your “natural laws” and “unalienable rights”?

No. You will either become what you despise or lead yourself to slaughter.

This is what your ilk never understood.

Governments serve the majority while protecting the minority. Pretending to be the minority because you have a dissenting opinion doesn’t make you the minority. It makes you a bitch. The minority will always be your true masters and they don’t give a fuck about you. They just pretend to care about just as you pretend to care about what they are taking from you, because in the end, the only real action you are capable of is complaining with the hope others will do what you can’t.

Reflect upon that, and remember: everyone who claims they want to make the world a better place, really just wants to make the world better for themselves.

[Image: 93975-john-wayne-quotes.jpg]

Slap

popnana
Reply Share
#16
(05-16-2018, 11:46 AM)Scent of Cedar Wrote:
(05-16-2018, 03:30 AM)Guest Wrote:
(05-15-2018, 08:57 PM)Angry Red Man Wrote: Source your information.

Oh right you are.

So sorry that direct references to information are not worthy sources, yet an OP can post a link to a commercial entity and fill a page of opinion without any sources to back up his claims.

What good are sources, footnotes, endnotes or links to individuals who will immediately respond with claims of “propaganda”.

Hey, I get it. I really do. Your mindset convinces you that your way of thinking is right, and any opposing views are wrong. Your way of thinking can not possibly be wrong because admitting you are wrong is just beyond comprehension.

There are only a few natural laws. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not among them. Those are man-made constructs of the weak. Survival of the fittest and might makes right are the only natural laws and possessing a firearm does nothing but temporarily subvert those truths.

A gun will not save you from illness. A gun will not save you from disease. A gun will not protect you from a contaminated water supply or tainted food source. A gun will not save you from fire. A gun will only protect your life and property until you are too weak to hold your gun.

Abrahamic religions are the religion of slaves. They even demand subservience before God. Religion makes slaves and are promoted by the weak. When the weak are many, they appear strong, but in times of crisis the weak always bow to the will of the mighty.

There are no inalienable rights bestowed by the creator because the creator is a myth promoted upon the weak.

You hate the evil corrupt government because you are slaves, and you know that without the government you so desperately despise; that is constantly stealing your freedoms; you would be nothing but a victim of those that are more powerful than you. Those who have no morals fostered upon their mentality by their voluntary enslavement.

Society creates words like psychopath and sociopath to describe human beings who live according to their animal instincts and nature. A well fed lion that kills for no other purpose except for “because it can” is not a psychopath or a sociopath. It is merely a lion.

With no government to protect your rights, to enforce society’s “laws”, men will become lions and kill with no other purpose other than “because they can!” Who will stop them. You with your “natural laws” and “unalienable rights”?

No. You will either become what you despise or lead yourself to slaughter.

This is what your ilk never understood.

Governments serve the majority while protecting the minority. Pretending to be the minority because you have a dissenting opinion doesn’t make you the minority. It makes you a bitch. The minority will always be your true masters and they don’t give a fuck about you. They just pretend to care about just as you pretend to care about what they are taking from you, because in the end, the only real action you are capable of is complaining with the hope others will do what you can’t.

Reflect upon that, and remember: everyone who claims they want to make the world a better place, really just wants to make the world better for themselves.

[Image: 93975-john-wayne-quotes.jpg]

Slap

popnana

I'll catch up in a bit. Still trying to fit 3 cups of cofveve in my cup that only holds 2.

Heir is an "Estate in Trust" man and I'm a "Literalist" when it comes to the Constitution. They are not mutually exclusive positions and often times complimentary. I find that people new to researching the subject catch on quicker with the "What they wrote is what they meant and every single bit is as important as the next." approach.

Once they understand that, they can move on to more in depth points of view such as what Heir has to offer.

As far as the guest is concerned, source your work. Show me how you came to the conclusions that you have. Walk me through your mental processes by providing the links. Mine is easy, go read the documents and the writings of the time from the people who wrote it. You may want to throw in a few books from that era such as Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Something severely lacking now. Heir has a nice thread on his point of view in his signature. If you want to be taken seriously, source your work.
The Grumpy Geezer's Signature Surprise.
Stay tuned to this Grump Channel as new programming will be added irregularly.

Reply Share
#17
(05-16-2018, 11:35 AM)Heir Wrote:
(05-16-2018, 10:58 AM)Guest Wrote: You didn't sign the Constitution, you are not beholden to it. * * * If you didn't have a say in the forging of a contract, why would you think you are a party to it

Ah . . . a Lysander Spooner / Unitarian / Anarchist point of view .

I doubt many have Signed or otherwise Subscribed Their Grandparent's Last Will and Testament either .

And I am not "beholden " to It . Those on the Payroll are , and Answerable to the Cestui Cue .


[Image: CM-Capture-123.jpg]




[Image: 180424114631-melania-trump-full-169.jpg]
bigD111, Sassy Fringette  likes this!
Reply Share
#18
Quote:The 2nd Amendment is not about tyranny or self defense, but is a provision for a citizen based militia to serve a new government that had yet to establish a standing military force until 1791 for the Army, 1794 for the Navy and Marines. (These are official Acts of Congress and truly establish creation dates regardless of claims by the military claiming 1775 origins with the Continental Military Organizations) A policy that would continue to serve a purpose during the years of westward expansion into new unexplored territory where the United States Government was unable to provide for the defense of it’s citizens.


And the 2 nd Amendment . . . a Policy . . . that would continue . . . to Provide for Defense of Citizens / where the United States Government was unable to provide .

Novel , but where did THAT notion originate ?

When the Constitution is understood as a Trust , the " Bill of Rights " is recognized as a List of of Property specifically excluded from the Trust " Property " and control . This is no basis for " Policy " . This is Proof of Ownership , and The Governments do not have it . If a Deed is needed , the 2 nd would fulfill that need .
Celebrating 25 Years as a Designated " Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Angry Red Man, Scent of Cedar  likes this!
Reply Share
#19
(05-16-2018, 12:06 PM)Angry Red Man Wrote: Heir is an "Estate in Trust" man and I'm a "Literalist" when it comes to the Constitution. They are not mutually exclusive positions and often times complimentary. I find that people new to researching the subject catch on quicker with the "What they wrote is what they meant and every single bit is as important as the next." approach.

Yes indeed . " Complimentary " to the point of Necessary Companions .

A Literalist travels the Incorporeal Realms of Thought and Intention . An Estate forms the Corporeal Expression of Intention in thought .

For those fresher to this study , it helps to use the same Dictionary .

[Image: WebstersDictionary1828.png] http://webstersdictionary1828.com/

Noah was there . . . He should know .
Celebrating 25 Years as a Designated " Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Angry Red Man, Scent of Cedar  likes this!
Reply Share
#20
(05-16-2018, 11:35 AM)Heir Wrote:
(05-16-2018, 10:58 AM)Guest Wrote: You didn't sign the Constitution, you are not beholden to it. * * * If you didn't have a say in the forging of a contract, why would you think you are a party to it

Ah . . . a Lysander Spooner / Unitarian / Anarchist point of view .

I doubt many have Signed or otherwise Subscribed Their Grandparent's Last Will and Testament either .

And I am not "beholden " to It . Those on the Payroll are , and Answerable to the Cestui Cue .

I'm no anarchist, but yes. The problem with those types is they tend to gloss over the whole "no man can be a law unto himself" concept. I am not against the Constitution, the problem is (as your well aware) the employees have way overstepped their jurisdiction.

I think a personal (family) will is a bad example, our founding documents are unique, but I understand your point. The real issue (for me) is the understanding of the author of the trust, man or God. When men create it, men can break it. Too many people have no understanding that our system of governance is rooted in the bible and the biblical concept of "birth right" and they sure as hell are not seeing that connection to our founding documents.
Reply Share

Post Thread  Back To Forum
[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Please select the number: 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10