Common Law and Freedom are not complicated, and the illiterate will fully comprehend them.
It started at birth and your task is to exit the Slave-TRAP you were born into...
Consider the profound distinction between these two words: People and citizen.
One is Free and the other is not…
LOL, moments ago I listened to this recording
and I was laughing. Eric is spot on with his simplicity.
The aristocrats [aka “founding fathers”] voided the contract with their King and knew what they were doing in forming a constitutional contract in America. Sadly some people within the “patriot movement” fail to grasp this distinction…
Below is a wonderful sharing of information and personal experiences. ~Ron
KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid
Eric Williams
Eric Williams: Sovereignty, Personal Freedom, and the Grand Jury
WATCH ON YOU TUBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6LdUSr2GpY&feature=youtu.be
ARKANSAS, USA – In an ExopoliticsTV interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre, advocate Eric Williams discussed Sovereignty, Personal Freedom, and the Grand Jury as conceived under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution.
Partial Transcript
A partial transcript of Eric Williams remarks is as follows:
First, why does everyone insist on making the assertion of political Sovereignty so complicated when it is actually so very simple?
Back in 1970, I was prosecuted by the IRS in Federal Court in Los Angeles, for criminal willful failure to file or pay income tax. At the trial, at the very outset, I challenged the IRS prosecutor to present evidence that I was among those he claimed had various citizenship obligations.
When my case was called, there were only five people in the court room ….
After I say the prosecutor has no proof of BC in his file……
When neither the Court Judge nor the Prosecutor could establish that I had volunteered myself into being a U.S. citizen, no matter that to the best of my knowledge I was born in California. (Being born in the United States does NOT cause such individual to be designated a citizen due to such birth.) Because the IRS could not establish that I had voluntarily submitted myself to the jurisdiction of the IRS or Federal (or state) government , the Judge said he was taking the matter under consideration and that I would be notified. That was forty-four years ago, I am still waiting.
Some people assume that because my event was forty-four years ago that challenging the political jurisdiction would not now work. During the past year there have been several people who have presented letters to the IRS challenging the ability of the IRS to present evidence that they had volunteered themselves into subservience to the IRS or federal or state governments. I am not aware that any of such letters have failed to ward off the IRS or State tax collectors. Some of these individuals are still using their DL and SS# under the Law of necessity recognized by the Supreme Court in a case called Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892?), where the Supreme Court wrote that when the strict application of the letter of a law or Constitutional provision would result in an absurd outcome, the law of Constitutional provision must be applied in a manner to avoid the absurd outcome.
My challenge was and is based on the 13th and 14th Amendments, which have not changed.
Because so much of what was prevalent back in the 1960s did not work, I went back to the beginning of this country, back to July 4, 1776, Prior to that date, everyone here in the Thirteen Colonies was under the dominion of King George III.
However, on that date, when King George was kicked out, at that moment there was absolutely no government here in what had a moment prior been under King George. At that moment on that day everyone present became politically equal. There were no more Aristocrats and there were no more commoners. Everyone became individually sovereign over their own person, with no authority to command the subservience of any other person.
It helps if we think of it mathematically. Think of each individual person’s authority over others as being equal to ZERO. When each person’s authority over others is equal to ZERO, how many ZEROs would be required to be added up to come up with a total greater than ZERO?
This establishes, with a mathematical certainty, that although the Founding Fathers could certainly get together and create any manner of organization that they agreed upon, but there was ZERO possibility that the Founders could have had any authority or ability to imbue their creation with any authority to command the subservience of any individual who did not individually volunteer to submit his or her self to the government created under their Constitution. ZERO plus ZERO would still equal ZERO, and in 1866, the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment instilled the acknowledgment of this mathematically certain fact into our Constitution.
This information is not at all complicated, it is very simple and does not require any significant study or research for anyone to be able to understand it! Neither does it require anyone to file any rescission documents with any government agency.
All we need to do is examine how our government manages our society to entice us individually, to volunteer ourselves into subservience to its rules.
It is very important for those who have been confused by all the conflicting information prevalent among the Freedom movement, to understand how vulnerable the human child is to indoctrination, and that this vulnerability does not significantly diminish as we grow older.
Thinking is very hard work and none of us like to do any more work than is necessary, so when others tell us what we want to hear. when they tell us they have a solution in regard to bow we got under control of the government, because our names are written in all capital letters, or because of gold fringe on the flag, and that the government has taken over ownership of us through its bundling and sale of our birth certificates, and that our republican form of government has been turned into a corporation, we presume that those who tell us these things have done their homework , but they have not, as I have revealed here in what I said earlier, about how ZERO plus ZERO will always equal ZERO!
When this mathematically certain fact is applied to all the information the effect of all these assertions just vanishes, because none of it overcomes ZERO plus ZERO equaling ZERO!
As this is irrefutably true, it is not possible for any of the reasons prevalent among the Freedom community to be true!
So how were we enticed to volunteer ourselves into political servitude?
1. The Constitution was written by Aristocratic men who were politicians who had been in charge of the commoners under the British Monarch for, literally, centuries. For all of them to willingly give up their Aristocratic positions, to agree to be politically equal to scrub women and stablemen, without a whimper, is just too much to believe. It is amazing to me that very few of the members of the Freedom movement have any qualms about the true intent of the Founders.
2. They were politicians. This means they were accomplished in manipulating others. This means that they knew very well how to write legislation so that there would be loop-holes for themselves and their friends to work around whatever they were imposing on the commoners. And, it also means they knew how to writs a Constitution where there would be no such loop holes, so why did they give us this sieve? For whose benefit were all those hole provided? Or, flip that, and consider, who was it that was intended to be enslaved under the Constitution?
3. Just take a look around! Try your mirror! The one that magnifies!
4. An argument can be made to establish that everything that has been and is being done is supported by the CONstitution! Everyone reads the comments and admonishments of the Founders written or presented by them outside of the CONstitution, as to how important it is to keep a watchful eye on the government, to keep it on track with the CONstitution, but why did they not write the CONstitution to more securely prevent the problems they perceived as arising if the populace was not unrealistically vigilant.
Is it reasonable that we should have to continually watch everything that politicians do in order to keep them in conformance to the Constitution? And when the rules set down in the CONstitution are written in a way that the politicians can reasonably support everything that they do as being Constitutional, how do we prevent them from instituting the micro-management of us that they have?
5. The commoners of that time wanted and expected a society where there would only be one political class. A republic is NOT such an organization! No where in the history of man is there one single society that has been “governed” by the commoners or where there was only one political class.
6. Why were those present back then and why are the Freedom advocates of today so adamant in their concerns and demands in regard to having and restoring a republican form of government back then and here in our time? Or, was there any such advocacy or demand on the part of the commoners back then? I don’t recall ever hearing about any such issue by those commoners, so why did the Aristocratic Framers of the CONstitution include that provision, guaranteeing a republican form of government to the new states? And why do the filings of the New York Grand Jury put such adamant insistence that this CONsitutional provision which they seem to believe and claim has been in some way eradicated, be restored?
7. Where in the Federal Constitution is there any overt evidence declaring that this document created a republic? What is a republic? According to the content of there filings and the foot notes included therein, a republic is a form of society where the People are in charge. In charge of what or who? One of the foot notes included, taken from the New York State Codes, provides that the People are over the citizens. Does that foot note not indicate that there are two political classes? The People being the ruling class and the citizens being those ruled?
8. In regard to the words “citizen” and “People”, some words have an inherent political meaning and some do not, but those words which do not can be imbued with a political meaning if the context in which they are set is political. And while we are considering this it is also advisable to be aware of the propensity of politicians to use certain words as “terms of art”, which means with devious unrevealed intent.
9. It is self evident that the word “citizen” is a political word which constitutes an acknowledgment of subservience to a political superior no matter the context, such as, “All the citizens in the swimming pool or all the citizens watching the football game”. Is there any doubt that both references to citizens indicate a subservience to a political superior?
10. If the word “people” were substituted would there be any such political subservience implication? “All the people in the swimming pool or all the people watching the football game”?
11. If we carefully read the Preamble to the Constitution, paying attention to this political context in which the word “People” is set, we have, in relevant part: “We the People of the United States, in order to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
12. Is it not self evident that in this political context the word “People” is automatically imbued with a political meaning, that it is now a political “Term of Art”, that devious politicians can use to subjugate innocent common people?
As they did in their condensing and rewording of the fifty amendments to the Constitution proposed by the commoners, where they used the word “people” in the five most critical of those amendments, and totally avoided using the word “citizen”, because if they had used both of those political status establishing words, the commoners would have objected.
13. The purpose of the Preamble is very important but is usually overlooked. The Preamble establishes the purpose of the Constitution and declares the source of its authority, which is clearly stated to be The People of the United States, “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to THEM, and THEIR Posterity”.
14. In order to have the authority to declare such purpose those doing so must be politically Sovereign! Those doing so must be subservient to no politically superior man or entity.
15. At that time was there anyone or any entity present in North America who had more political authority than the People of the United States? Clearly there was no such superior authority.
16. In the Preamble the Founding Fathers established that the People of the United States were Sovereign. This meant that neither They nor Their Posterity would be subject to comply with what they established in the Constitution. This indicates the purpose of the Constitution was to govern the government, to prevent it from treating the commoners as a politically subservient class.
However, a careful study of the Constitution, with a suspicious eye, will reveal that the Founding Fathers had a different intention.
17. The establishment in the Preamble of the Sovereign status of The People was open and notoriously done. Everyone then present knew that they were of the People of the United States so no problem was perceived, except by Patrick Henry, when Patrick Henry read the CONstitution he said he smelled a rat and he would have no more to do with it.
NOTE: This Patrick Henry insert is an editorial comment, and not part of the original transcript.
Portrait of Patrick Henry
…pressure from his young family (he had married at the age of eighteen) caused him to study for six weeks and take the bar exam, which he passed, and begin work as a lawyer.
In 1764 he moved to Louisa county, Virginia, where, as a lawyer, he argued in defense of broad voting rights (suffrage) before the House of Burgesses. The following year he was elected to the House and soon became its leading radical member. It was that year that he proposed the Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions. Few members of the Burgesses, as aristocratic a group of legislators as existed in the colonies, would argue openly for defiance of Gr. Britain. Henry argued with remarkable eloquence and fervor in favor of the five acts, which by most accounts amounted to a treason against the mother country. In 1774 he represented Virginia in the First Continental Congress where he continued in the role of firebrand. At the outbreak of the revolution, he returned to his native state and lead militia in defense of Virginia’s gunpowder store, when the royal Governor spirited it aboard a British ship. Henry forced the Governor Lord Dunmore to pay for the powder at fair price.
18. Now is where the Founding politicians get tricky and devious. These politicians creating this political document are going to unambiguously and surreptitiously create a subservient political class, citizen of the United States.
19. This is in Section Two of Article One, where it is made clear that U.S. citizenship is not acquired by birth because it provides that to serve in the House, the citizen must be twenty-five years old and seven years a citizen; and to serve in the Senate, Thirty years old and nine years a citizen.
20. Please take note here that there are no limiting eligibility requirements established for those of the ruling People class to serve in any of the offices of the Federal Government.
21. So there now, the Founders created heir subservient commoner class, causing the political entity, the United States of America to be a Republic.
22. Do these provisions give us cause to have some concerns about the actual parental intentions of the “Founding Fathers”?
23. Am I the only one who perceives a concern in regard to the word “republic” being used here in the Constitution and in the filings of the New York Grand Jury, because I see the word “republic” in the official names of about a hundred totalitarian dictatorships on this planet? Such as “The People’s Republic of China”, and “The Democratic People’s Republic of [North] Korea”.
24. I have written about this in other comments on Jean’s Blog, as to why the Founders included this Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government in all the states, being so that all of those of the “former” aristocratic class could move to an outlaying territory and create a Dukedom for themselves where they could have control over their own subjects, except here we would call them states, and Governors rather than Dukedoms and Dukes, and citizens rather than subjects. What is the significant difference?
25. In regard to the filings of the New York Common Law Grand Jury, rejected by the New York State Courts, who was it that included in those rejected filings all of the exceedingly strong emphasis in regard to the demand therein that the CONstitutional guarantee that every state have a republican form of government be honored?
26. What has that got to do with the re-establishment of the Peoples Control over the Common Law Grand Juries? And why would the advocates of the Common Law Grand Juries want the provision establishing two political classes be honored by the Federal Government?
27. Wouldn’t it be expected that whomever had the intellectual skills to create those beautifully crafted very emotionally stimulating documents, would have had the intellectual ability to see the need for a further examination of the propriety of the use of the word “republic” here, in a society purported to be Free, where all us commoners are led to believe there is only one political class, and where the Supreme Court wrote in the Dred Scott case in 1864, that the terms citizen of the United States and People of the United States, both had the same meaning. And when we observe the word “republic” so flagrantly obvious in the names of so many totalitarian dictatorships?
28. All of this ranting to restore the republic has caused great confusion here among the common people, especially in their very divergent opinions and beliefs as to what is Constitutional and what is Unconstitutional. We all agree that we want lower taxes and less government, but when “everyone” has a different opinion as to what constitutes “lower”and “less”, how can we ever attain either?
29. Does not this dilemma indicate that we all need to back up and take an unbiased view of what would actually be a proper form of society? If we start at the beginning – well what then is the beginning?
30. Well, I contend that everyone who is reasonable will have to agree that when we humans are born that we then have no knowledge of human society or of anything and, of the utmost importance, we have no frame of reference against which we can compare what we are taught, to enable us to properly determine if such information is good for us or good for whomever was teaching it to us. Can there be any reasonable reason anyone could refuse to acknowledge this self evident fact?
31. While we are considering our birth condition, surly we can all acknowledge that when we are born we have no Naturally imbued authority to command anyone to obey us. Can there be any reasonable reason anyone could refuse to acknowledge this self evident fact? That when we are born our political authority over others is mathematically equal to ZERO?
32. Do not these two self evident facts clearly establish that as none of us are born with any individual authority to command others that it would then be totally ridiculous and impossible for any number of us to purport to have an ability to combine our non existing individual authority in order for a “majority” to create an authority to command the “minority” to obey them. That no matter how many ZEROs are added together, the total will always be ZERO.
33. From where could authority for a majority to command the minority to obey, reasonably arise?
34. As it is self evident that no one has any Natural authority to lay a tax on anyone then is it not then equally self evident that it would be impossible for such impotent individuals to combine their non-existing ZERO authority in order to create an authority to lay a tax on anyone?
35. Does not this reasoning clearly establish that the level of lower taxation that is proper is no taxation at all and likewise establish that what properly constitutes less government is no government at all?
36. If anyone listening does not agree with this logic, would you please point out its defective reasoning?
37. Well, many listeners will argue, “We must have some rules!” Yes, that sure does sound reasonable, but who will decide what those rules will be and who they will apply to? “Well we must at least outlaw abortion and child molestation, and we certainly can’t allow people to gather rain water from the roofs of their houses!”
38, If we allow our emotions to control us we will soon wind up right back where we are. The one and only way is to acknowledge that zero plus zero always equals zero, and that this basic Principle is true no matter how emotionally large we make the zeros!
39. The way criminal behavior is controlled in a Truly Free society is through the Common Lay Jury.
40. In a Truly Free society, when a person contends they have been criminally victimized, the victim files a report with the Sheriff; the Sheriff presents the complaint to the Grand Jury, if the GJ agrees that it appears that a crime has been committed, the GJ will empanel a petit jury to hold a trial. After a full and proper examination, as determined by the jury and the defendant and victim, each of the jury members will consider the facts and determine that if the juror had been in the same situation as the accused, and had acted as had the accused, would the juror feel that he or she had acted properly or criminally? If the jurors reach a unanimous decision of guilt,, that same jury would decide the penalty and the community would enforce it.
So how do we individually become subservient to the government?
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone
References
Eric Williams – Commentary
http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/?s=eric+williams
Eric Williams – Discussion Group
groups.yahoo.com/group/whor
Eric Williams: Sovereignty, Personal Freedom, and the Grand Jury
RELATED:
See Comment section
_______________________________________________________
Want Worldwide PEACE and Prosperity. We are the solution we have been searching for... Free People on Earth will solve our crisis and create an era of Creativity. Be Aware; Be Creative; Be Active; Be Free; and then Share it. LOVE & Wholeness AMOR y Paz
Ronmamita's Blog 
Eric Williams Responds to Sherayx
Posted June 12, 2014 by http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/eric-williams-responds-to-sherayx-june-12-2014/
As I put this up, it is very early here, and I am barely awake. Eric apparently had almost no sleep last night, after getting his computer up-and-running again and trying to find the threads/comments to the articles on my blog, which are somehow missing for him. Finally, he sent me this response to post (and I hope then went to bed), which I think is important enough to post as an article. It is not a simple issue, but Eric’s words and thought process make it clear to me, and I sincerely thank him for this.
Let me add a personal comment, because unless there is some misunderstanding I was deeply disturbed to read yesterday that Eric said his response during the phone call was cut off by John. As a listener, I had no way of knowing this. I’m sorry, but I do not think this apparent utter lack of transparency is the way to achieve the success for which we are all looking. We are asking some very serious questions here, and IMO everyone needs to know where everyone else stands on the issue — no matter how long it takes.
I wanted to get Eric’s thoughts up here as quickly as possible, so I will do so and be back somewhat later this morning. I also want to mention that Alfred Lambremont Webre plans to interview Eric next Tuesday on the Sovereign Citizen and Common Law grand jury movements and the interview will be online shortly thereafter.
To me, there is nothing more important than the fact that we all must come together through Common Law to PEACEFULLY take our country back, and I sincerely thank Eric Williams and Alfred, who I know works very closely with Kevin Annett, for his interest and support.
Hugs,
~Jean
* * * * * * *
In Response to Sherayx:
I do appreciate your comment because it gives me an opportunity to address much misinformation prevalent in the Freedom Community. I am not here at this time going to go into detail in regard to everything that I comment on but I will at another time. I just want to let you know here that there are very reasonable arguments in support of all of the following comments:
First the law is not necessarily the law. I suggest everyone download and read the SCOTUS case, “Holy Trinity Church v. United States”, in which the SC stated that when the strict adherence to the letter of the law would result in an absurd outcome, the law must be considered and applied in a way which would avoid the absurdity.
Next, in order to avoid confusion and spreading misinformation you must be very careful about how you use the word “people”. In general context the word “people” is merely a word we use in general reference to human beings (and for those of you who don’t like the term “human beings”, this applies to you to), however, when used in reference to those persons (and those of you who are offended by the word “person”, you also need to pay attention to what I am writing here), who have maintained or re-established their Sovereign status as being of the Posterity of the People of the Preamble, who created the Constitution to secure the blessings of Liberty to themselves and their Posterity, the word “People” has a quite different meaning. It is like the word, “sanction”, does the word “sanction” convey a positive or negative meaning? It could be either, and sometimes it is very difficult to determine which.
When the word “People” is used in reference to those persons who are properly eligible to populate the Grand Jury, that meaning should be made clear by the writer. A reference to the people of New York or to the people of the United States does not, in and of itself constitute a reference to those persons who are properly eligible to populate the Grand Jury. (In this last sentence I used the word “person” to avoid confusion, so that it would be clear that the persons I was referring to in the earlier portion of that sentence was not a reference to those persons who are properly eligible to populate the Grand Jury because such eligible persons have informed themselves as to how they were fraudulently indoctrinated to surrender their Naturally acquired political independence and have taken steps, within themselves — not necessary to file any manner of rescission documents with any government entity, so that they understand that no matter that they did indeed. surrender their Naturally acquired political independence, such act was a direct result of their having been fraudulently indoctrinated by government agents known as “school teachers”, and that therefore, such surrender was and is totally VOID, NOT voidable, but VOID, and of no effect. And, that such person has declared, officially, under penalty of perjury under the Common Law, that they had never ever willingly, knowingly, and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, ever voluntarily agreed to submit themselves to the political jurisdiction of the United States or the State of New York or New York State — the two state references are not references to the same political entity).
Next we have the widespread contention and belief, that the court system is entirely corrupt which is simply not true, but has mainly been spread about because Pay-Tri-Idiots have gone into traffic court, where there is no record being kept, and attempted to invoke the Bill of Rights and or other Constitutional protections which have absolutely no application in those courts, because the defendant’s presence there is due to a contract violation which is not protected by the Bill of Rights or any other Constitutional provision.
Because the judges in these courts admonish the defendants to not mention the Bill of Rights or other Constitutional protections the accused jumps to the totally erroneous conclusion that the judge is ignoring the Constitution and is in violation of his oath and is committing high treason.
This is all total nonsense! If the accused would take the time to do some homework, to search out what the relationship is between him and the government, with proper consideration of the clear fact that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, which would (and does) prevent any state from requiring anyone to procure a driver license prior to operating a motorized conveyance (whether or not it is referred to as an automobile or a motor vehicle makes zero difference), and it also makes zero difference whether or not the accused was purporting to exercise his natural right to travel on the public way or was engaging in commercial traffic behind the wheel of an eighteen wheeler, also makes zero difference, but, somehow, the accused seems to have gotten himself into a subservient relationship to the state, well how, exactly did that happen?
Is it in any way reasonable that every traffic court judge in the fifty states is a corrupt criminal? And that every district attorney in these Fifty states is corrupt? As neither of these suppositions is reasonable then why do so many of these Pay-Tri-Idiots jump to the conclusion that the judges and prosecutors are all corrupt criminals?
How about stepping back and considering all the background, which is actually not all that much or difficult. As it is clear that every single human is born with a totally empty head, and with zero authority to command the subservience of any other person, how then were some few of them able to gain control over so many millions?
There is so much total miss-information in the freedom movement I don’t know if it is possible to straighten it out. When you were born a name was conjured up for you to be called by and answer to. You did NOT dream up that name! That name was then entered on a birth certificate by someone other than you, therefore, although that BC might very well be a record of your birth, as you had zero participation in the entry of information on that document. or filing it with the state, there is no possibility that you could have any ownership claim on the name or the BC.
It was (I presume), your parents who came up with the name so it would be they who would have standing to claim ownership of that name when it was entered on the BC and filed with the state, but they did not enter any such ownership claim. Because of this omission your parents effectively abandoned their rightful ownership claim – get it – your parents abandoned any ownership claim of the name they entered on that birth certificate – this means that they no longer had standing to give it to you, legally.
Read on:
Every single state in this Federation (NOT nation), has a statute for the state’s disposition of abandoned property. Among the sections of such statutes there will be a “catch all” provision addressing the disposition of all abandoned property not specifically covered in the previous sections. This “catch all” provision will include all the names entered on birth certificates.
After the time duration set in each state’s statute, each state will become the owner of the names entered on all those birth certificates.
Then, when you attain the age of sixteen years, having been “appropriately” indoctrinated to believe you were required to procure a driver license before you could drive your own motor vehicle, you presented yourself to the state’s driver license issuing clerk, with your birth certificate (which was NOT yours) clutched up in your chubby little fist, which you then voluntarily presented to the state’s driver licensing issuing clerk to be issued a driver license.
However, what you and your parents and everyone else (including me), failed to then consider, was/is, the clear self-evident fact that there is no information on that birth certificate that could connect it to the applicant. Additionally, as we were born free and independent of any state authority, there is no possible way the state could require us to procure a driver license to operate our own private automobile or any eighteen wheeler heavy duty commercial truck hauling goods for hire from New York to San Diego! When you are born free, you are born free. When the government has no authority over you, as is recognized in the Thirteenth Amendment, “Involuntary servitude shall not exist in the United States”, that means no government in this Federation has standing to require you to get a license to drive whatever you want to drive, or to do brain surgery on the traffic court judge.
So then, if the state has no authority to require you to apply for and be issued a driver license, then why did you do it? Because you totally failed to do your own due diligence and pay attention to these simple self evident facts that I have set forth in these paragraphs.
And, your application to be issued a driver license has absolutely nothing to do with what is known as “citizenship”! More on this below.
Prior to your voluntary initiation of the ceremony for you to be issued a driver license, the state had no authority or ability to require you to conform to any of its statutory enactments. This is true because the wonderful Thirteenth Amendment that everyone seems to overlook, prohibition of involuntary servitude prohibits any level of government in this Federation from requiring anyone to do anything.
The one and only way you can become required to conform to the rules established by any level of government in this Federation, is by you initiating your servitude to such entity! Do you understand that? You are the one and only cause of your subservience to the government, because you failed to do your due diligence by paying attention to the simple facts I have presented here. What is particularly aggravating to me is that I also likewise failed to do my due diligence when I was sixteen years of age, so I allowed myself to be suckered in just like everyone else!
My point here is, STOP blaming the judges! When you go to traffic court you are there for contract violations.
When you presented that birth certificate what you were doing? First, before the driver license part, kind of like eating the main course before eating the desert. The very most important part of that ceremony is your voluntary act of handing over of that birth certificate. What you were doing, that you did not realize, you were applying to the state asking the state to issue you a franchise license for you to use the name on that birth certificate as your “true legal name”, when such name had become owned by the state when you were five years old (in Arkansas it is five years, the years will vary from state to state).
Once you were issued that franchise that you voluntarily applied for, you were then under a contractual relationship with the state (not in any way determined to be “citizenship”). Any and every time you engage in any manner of activity while operating under that state owned name, you are obligated to comply with the state’s rules pertaining to that activity. The claim that the government has converted the right to travel into a privilege is a total miss-statement. It was YOU, who did the “conversion”, not the state. You were the one who initiated the franchise ceremony.Why did you not look at that birth certificate to see if there was any information on that document that could connect it to you? Because there is no such information!
So stop all this gibberish about all the courts violating the Constitution, because it is not, for the most part, true.
If you know what your political status was when you were born, as declared by Chief Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia, that “upon the revolution all the former subjects became joint tenants in the sovereignty”, then understand how you lost it, through fraud on the part of the state, so you can then know how to get yourself off the government’s fly-paper, without getting your other foot stuck back on.
Moreover, when you truly understand the birth certificate, “true legal name”, driver license scam, then everything else will fall into place, which beings me to the following Pay-Tri-Idiocy:
Next, references to “people from a private corporation”. Where in the world did this total nonsense get started? Purportedly in the Congressional Act of 1871, an Act to create a municipal Government for Washington, D.C. I have read and re-read that Act, there is simply nothing in that Act that accomplishes anything other than the Creation of a municipal government for WDC. And, in that Act, CONgress retains full, 100%, control over the municipal government created thereunder.
Then we have all those court cases where various courts are purported to have declared that the Federal Government is a corporation – sorry, it never ever happened. The problem is, the majority of Pay-Tri-Idiots do not know how to read legalese; How to read it? They don’t even know what it is!
Where is there any Constitutional provision that would allow any court to determine that the Federal Government is a corporation?
What is a corporation? How does a corporation gain corporate status? Who are those who constitute a corporation? Where does the authority to create or declare a corporation arise from? And finally, what term would best describe the manner of the organization of the government of the United States?
A corporation is an organizational structure designed to continue in operation after the death of those who created it. Designed so that the heirs of the designers and original owners can not cause the assets to be sold so that the heirs can distribute the monetary proceeds among themselves. This factor is to insure the continuing ability of the corporation to continue providing its special service to the community. Corporations are granted certain special operating privileges due to their being designed to provide a service to the community needed and desired by the community, as does Wal-Mart and General Motors.
Corporate status is gained by the legislature of the government authorizing the corporation due to the fact that the corporation is going to provide a service to the community needed and desired by the community, on a never ending continuing basis — always reviewable by the government to insure the corporation is living up to its charter.
Corporations are constituted by private individuals who perceive an opportunity to engage in a monetarily profitable endeavor on a continuing basis, who offer shares of stock to be purchased by those attracted to that corporation’s particular service.
The authority to create or declare a corporation arises from the legislature. There must be an authority superior to the corporation in order for the corporation to continue to operate after the death of the original humans who brought it into existence, to avoid the normal disposition of inherited property by heirs of the deceased.
The court’s reference characterizing the government as a corporation was intended to establish that when the government is involved in litigation, it must conform to the same rules as would a corporation.
As to what term would best describe the organization of the government of the United States, in my opinion, a fraudulent design, intended to mislead the common people by misrepresenting to them that the government created was one where there would be no divergent political status designations, such as People and citizen. Virtually identical to the government then existing in England, with only the names of the three branches being changed. In England they have a House of Commons, here we have a House of Representatives; there they have a House of Lords, here we have a Senate; there they have a King, here we have a President, who would be king if he is not reigned in!
How would citizens of the United States fare differently if this society were a corporation or not a corporation? But before that, it would be very appropriate to determine how someone born here on this land becomes a citizen of the United States. Keep in mind that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, and the self-evident fact that citizenship, no matter how it is written, constitutes an acknowledgment of political subservience to a political superior.
In my many years of study and research I have been unable to discover any Constitutional provision or any other authority that could Constitutionally declare anyone born here to be a citizen, because of the prohibition of involuntary servitude set forth in the Thirteenth Amendment.
If asked if you are a citizen by a court judge, I would suggest you respond with a question, “What is a citizen? In acknowledgment that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits citizenship by birth and the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment does not declare anyone to be a citizen due to any other means than naturalization, how does a person born in the United States becomes a citizen; and, what are the benefits of citizenship to a person born here?”
By the way, a big mistake Freedom advocates make in traffic court (and other prosecutions) is their declaring themselves to be sovereign or in any way not under the authority of the government. The proper way to accomplish the desired results is to put the burden on the Prosecutor, NOT the court or judge. It was the state that brought the charges, NOT the court or judge. Challenge the prosecutor to provide proof from the state’s file that you volunteered your self into a condition of servitude, which is required for the state to present due to the prohibition of involuntary servitude recognized in the Thirteenth Amendment.
If the judge then asks you any questions, clearly formulated to elicited information from you to establish your subservience, DO NOT respond to his question with the answer suggested by his question! Instead, inform him that the charges against you were lodged by the executive branch, NOT the court! That in order for the Executive branch to have standing to prosecute you, in conformance to the Federal Thirteenth Amendment, the state is required to present proof that you volunteered to submit yourself to the political jurisdiction of the state prior to the date that the charges were filed against you. And, for the judge to have asked you a question, clearly formulated with the intention of eliciting incriminating information from you, constitutes a violation by the court of the Separation Of Powers Doctrine, and that due to the court’s violation, the court is disqualified from any further participation in this matter, other than to dismiss all charges lodged against you because the state has failed to present its proof, from its existing files.”
Understand, the state must have had such proof in its files on the day that you were charged, a month or two prior. If they didn’t have such proof in their files back then, then they had no standing to lodge the charges against you back then!
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone
Share this:
Facebook1
Twitter1
Email
Print
Related
Eric Williams responds to a Reader’s comment: There is always “the rest of the story”.In “Financial/economic information”
~Jean’s general response as a suggestion to everyone regarding Eric Williams post, Some New York Common Law Grand Jury Facts that are being hiddenIn “Financial/economic information”
Eric Walberg: VT Editor “Duffy” wrong on Egypt! – an old article that might help to explain the present situation in Egypt. . . ~JIn “Financial/economic information”
This entry was posted in Illuminati/Terrorism/Corruption. Bookmark the permalink.
← Kevin Annett: Breaking News from the Trial of Pope Francis issued by the Citizen Prosecutors’ Office, Brussels – Wednesday, June 11, 2014 – Public Information Bulletin No. 5
PressTV: Iraqi forces take Tikrit back from ISIL militants →
38 Responses to Eric Williams Responds to Sherayx, June 12, 2014
Pingback: In response to Eric Williams, June 12, 2014. | Maine Republic Email Alert
David Robinson says:
June 12, 2014 at 9:08 pm
Dear Jean,
Dear Jean,
In response to Eric Williams, June 12, 2014.
FIRST SOME BACKGROUND:
1. Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
2. Every man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.
3. Any authority our servants have is by our consent; if our servants act outside their authority they are subject to criminal charges.
4. Our US Constitution only authorizes “common law courts” a.k.a. “courts of record”. A court of record removes the power of the judge to make a ruling, his role is that of the “administrator” of the court. The final determinator is the “tribunal” who is either the “sovereign plaintiff” or a “jury”.
5. The common law is the supreme law of the land; codes, rules, regulations, policies and statutes are not “the law”.
6. No action can be taken against a sovereign in the non-constitutional courts of either the United States or the States; any such action is the crime of Barratry; Barratry is an offense at common law.
7. The 10th Amendment clearly states that the states and the people are sovereign.
8. The United States is a trust corporation, a.k.a. “nation”; it was formed as a union of “states”, a.k.a. “countries”.
9. A nation is not a country. Black’s Law 4th edition, 1891, defines “NATION” as: A people using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty. (Montoya v. U. S., -180 U.S. 261, 21 S. Ct. 358, 45 L.Ed. 521) (Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 539, 8 L.Ed. 483) (Republic of Honduras v. Soto, 112 N.Y. 310, 19 N.E. 845, 2 L.R.A. 642).
10. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments are instituted by and receive power from the “consent of the people”.
11. In 1868 the 14th Amendment created the “United States Citizen” who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the corporate United States), and are “given” privileges or immunities called “civil rights”.
12. The people created the United States in 1788 by authorizing the Constitution, therefore the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the people who created it.
13. Black’s Law 4th edition, 1891, defines “CITIZENS” as Members of the community inspired to a common goal, who, in associated relations, “submit themselves to rules of conduct” for the promotion of general welfare and conservation of individual as well as “collective rights”. (In re McIntosh, D.C.Wash., 12 F. Supp. 177).
14. The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to “the King” by his prerogative. (Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829)).
15. People are supreme, not the state. (Waring vs. the Mayor of Savannah).
16. The state cannot diminish rights of the people. (Hertado v. California, 100 US 516).
17. If people were not “citizens” before 1868, then what were they? The only conclusion is, they were the people: “sovereigns”! In other words they were “kings” without subjects with none to rule but themselves.
18. In 1868 the enemy of Liberty used the newly freed slaves as an excuse to write the 14th Amendment and when they tried to convince the people to become U.S. citizens, the people rejected because they saw the fraud.
19. So over time the Progressives co-opted our educational system through centralization — as they did everything else such as our judicial system, political system, economic system, news media, entertainment, religion, etc. — and taught the people and their children that the people were “US citizens”; and thereby the people became subject to the Progressive jurisdiction.
20. Common law is common sense; whereas statue law is based on statutes and codes.
21. Common law is American natural law; statue law is Roman civil law.
22. The people are sovereign; the 14th amendment established “citizen of the United States”.
23. The two qualifications of 14th amendment citizenship is (1) that the citizen be born or naturalized, and (2) that the citizen be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
24. If you are “subject” to some think or someone you are no longer “sovereign”
25. The United States is a trust; a corporation incorporated in Delaware.
26. States have Governors; corporations have Presidents, a Secretary and a Treasurer.
27. Sovereigns own the country they created.
28. Just because you sign a contract and you fail to reserve your sovereignty does not mean that you gave it up.
29 Citizens are subjects who have no rights, only privileges granted by the state; they’re called “civil rights” but they are not real rights; “civil rights” depend on government permissions.
30. A Democracy is where 51% of the citizens overrule 49%. This is majority rule. The 49% have no say so at all.
31. In a (the) Republic each individual is sovereign.
— — —
Our US Constitution only authorizes “common law courts” a.k.a. “courts of record”. A court of record removes the power of the Judge to make a ruling, his role is that of the “administrator” of the court. The final determinator of the issues is the “tribunal” who is either the “sovereign plaintiff” or a “jury”.
The five essential elements of a common law “court of record” are:
1. A common law “court of record” keeps a record of the proceedings;
2. A common law “court of record” proceeds according to the common law;
3. In a common law “court of record” the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge);
4. A common law “court of record” has power to fine or imprison for contempt;
5. A common law “court of record” generally has a seal (although optional).
— — —
The four essential elements of a lawful contract are:
1. Offer: — There must be a definite clearly stated offer to do something.
2. Acceptance: — Only what is offered can be accepted.
3. Intention of legal consequences: — A contract requires that the parties intend to enter inot a legally biniding agreement.
4. Consideration: — In order for a contract to be binding it must be supported by valuable consideration and full disclosure of the facts.
— — —
NOW FOR MY RESPONSE
Regardless of the stated claim, that “every single state in the Federation (NOT nation) has a statute for the state’s disposition of abandoned property; and that among the statutes there is a “catch all” provision addressing the disposition of all abandoned property; and that this “catch all” provision will include all the names entered on birth certificates; statue law is based on statutes and codes; but common law is common sense, whereas statutes and codes do NOT enter the case. (See #20).
Even though your parents — who came up with your name, who would have standing under Roman civil law to claim ownership of that name, when it was entered on the BC and filed with the state — did not enter any ownership claim; it merely went into the public domain not used. No contract gave the state anything, no matter what they may claim. Presumptions and assumptions do NOT exist in American common law. Neither do unilateral (one-party) contracts. It takes two parties (offeror and acceptor) to make a lawful contract, with knowledge of the conseqenses fully disclosed.
Yes indeed, when we were free-born we were born-free. No created government has standing to require anything of its masters.
Unilateral contracts are fraudulent and presumptive. And fraud VOIDS all that it enters into.
Hugs,
~ David Robinson, Founder of the Unified Maine Common Law Grand Jury — for the Maine Republic Free State.
http://mainerepublicemailalert.com
LikeLike
Voluntary Servitude
by James White, Northwest Liberty News:
As one peels back the layers of information about who we really are as individuals, the evidence that we have been hoodwinked by those in charge keeps piling up.
I think that many of us inherently know that TPTB are corrupt, and we can tell that they are lying because their lips are moving. However, the manner in which they have “flipped the script” never ceases to amaze me. As you will see in the companion video by Ron Gibson, it cannot be more clearly laid out that we have all, out of ignorance, voluntarily given up our rights and assimilated into the Corporate Borg. All of this information is out there, but unfortunately they do not feature it during sporting events or Dancing with the Stars, so many Americans have no clue. After examining all of this information more closely, I am beginning to realize why they stopped teaching the Constitution in public schools. Think about it… Why would a corporation funded public learning institution teach its students the way to overthrow the very corporation who funds the learning? Answer is, they don’t. It’s all a fraud, and it’s time we became educated about our real rights. Enjoy the video
Stop Feeding the Corporate Government
LikeLike