"MrKrabbs" <mrkrabbs@krustykrab.com>
Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:
19 Apr 2007 14:27:02 -0400
mk: Heya Ray,
mk: > I'm watching C-Span right now and they're passing a bill in the Senate that does, among other things, makes it a 10 year felony to file a false lien against a judge.
mk: > Enjoy.
rk: I'm enjoying it more and more with each passing day as Americans continue to awaken to the real enemy of the American People, i.e., Corporate Legislators, Judges, and enforcers. .
rk: Your comments indicate that such a crime did not exist when I filed liens in 2002 against the Crooked Judges of JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON.
rk: See what I mean about bogus trials being conducted by sham courts for the purpose of setting up innocent people just to fill jail and prison beds?
rk: Those who knowingly or unknowingly consent to their own prosecution and incarceration, then pay the bills to keep such draconian operations going, get what they deserve.
rk: Funny how that Mirror of Truth works, eh?
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©:
ps: Even with the passage of such Corporate UNITED STATES Legislation claiming to be law, until the Corporate Courts can establish JURISDICTION over this or any other LIVING, BREATHING, FLESH-AND-BLOOD, SENTIENT MAN who is not a 14th Amendment Subject and does not consent, contract, or agree to such policies, all action of the unconstitutional, non-Article III courts are moot, null and void and have no force of law behind it. I CALLED THEIR BLUFF -- THEY KICKED ME OUT OF JAIL. How much more proof do you need that you're being HAD by your shadow government.
Re: Jesus the only
way=Truth Is the Only Way!! When Will Satanically Controlled
Blind Believers Open Their Spiritual Eyes and See Truth Is the Only
Way!!
u2 fan <isaiah6517@googlemail.com> wrote:
Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote
http//www.arkenterprises.com
22 Apr 2007 03:56:07 -0700
Sir,
I have read your thread on the subject of "Jesus the only way". You are quite insightful in your comments, yet you have missed the point.
I am a living Christ, a simple man of Truth. Most who read this will rail at such a comment. Some will be curious. Others who have spiritual eyes to see and ears to hear will discern the Truth for themselves of such a statement.
Did not Jesus say "I am the Truth, Life and the Way"?
Did He not tell you in that statement that He was Truth?
Did He not say that He and His Father were One"?
Is not the Father, the Creator, Infinite Intelligence beyond the grasp of the finite intellect?
No, my brother, this Satanic mind Control enthrallment of the Western civilized people by their religious Institutions is the core of the two-sided coin of Satanic power in which is based the Institutions of Politics and Religion.
Such satanic (Intellectual-Opposing) religions promote a simple Man of Truth, a Christ named Jesus, declaring Him "Lord and Savior" over them and all other hopeless, helpless, enslaved religious mind controlled human beings who've been conditioned from the "cradle to the grave." Via such an intellectual ICON, a Satanic mind Control Focal Point, all blind believers are rendered inert, codependent, irresponsible. They are promised (and they believe) they shall not be held responsible for their self-destructive behavior if only they BELIEVE that JESUS DIED FOR THEIR SINS and their sins have been forgiven, washing away their never-ending guilt..
What HOGWASH!! The Political and Religious Leaders of His time strung Jesus up because His demonstrable Life of TRUTH threatened the Satanic Government of His time.
Face it, all of you who read this article are controlled in your daily lives by remote Authority Mind Control. BAR NONE!! Such is the nature of the dualistic Intellect of Man which believes, but cannot see, that the petty "god" of Intellect is the ruler of the civilized world of Civilized man.
Hypocrites go to church, get their "Satanic Absolution" fix, then resume their Satanic ruled life of deception, exploitation, and mutual destruction, all the while hiding behind the Satanic Illusion that they will be saved if ONLY THEY BELIEVE JESUS TO BE THEIR LORD AND SAVIOR. See what I mean about HOGWASH??
Such people, yourself perhaps, believe in such HOGWASH. Why?
Do you not understand that you too are a Christ, but you suffer from Amnesia?
You suffer from a lifetime of Satanic Conditioning -- incremental, unending conditioning which has reduced you from your True Estate as a Sovereign, Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man and Woman, Sons and Daughters of God, Christs, and transformed you into Self-doubting, confused, blindly-believing, Mammon-serving, Satanic Slaves.
You, each of you, are the Co-Creators of Your world. Look at it. Are you proud of your creation? Have you made your world into a Heaven or into a Hell? No answer is necessary -- ITS A NO BRAINER!!
Such people who cling to such Intellectual Concepts as "Jesus Is My Lord and Savior" are Spiritual Ignoramuses. They are Hypocrites. They say one thing, yet do another with complete Satanic abandon.
No, my Brother, you have missed the point. JESUS WAS TRUTH. Substitute the word TRUTH for JESUS, and you will see wherein Salvation lies. Change yourself and you change the world.
Substitute the word TRUTH for JESUS and WORSHIP TRUTH. Then you will speak Truth, Live Truth, Manifest Truth in a world of deception. Truth is Love. Truth is Oneness. Truth brooks NO OPPOSITION. Illusion is rendered impotent as It is reflected in the Mirror of Truth, the personage of a Christ.
Mark my words, worship, live, and be Truth, and YOU SHALL BE PERSECUTED because you will threaten everyone in their security-seeking Satanic illusion.
TRUTH IS THE WAY, CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE WAY.
Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- A Living Christ
By: Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
As most Republic Broadcasting Network radio talk show listeners are aware of by now, popular talk show host Greg Szymanski was removed forcibly from the air midshow by John Stadtmiller, owner of RBN yesterday April 23, 2007. . See details at: http://www.arcticbeacon.com/ " Greg thrown off the air by Vatican-led NWO agents in control of alternative media!!!"
I have written a number of articles in the past exposing Alternative Patriot Radio Talk show tactics which are no different from Mainstream Radio Talk show tactics in controlling and censoring callers who are invited to call and participate in the progam. I have observed long and hard, suspending judgement on what I was seeing unfolding on RBN, particularly when it came to owner of RBN John Stadtmiller. John's radio personna is one of a patient Interviewer and exudes friendliness and charm (unlike his off-air rude behavior my wife experienced when calling RBN to advertise my books and tapes). I listened and listened further to give Patriot Radio and John Stadtmiller the benefit of the doubt.
My original excursion into dealing with New World Order-serving Loyal Opposition Broadcasters began in 1994. It is recorded as "Media Unmasked" Re: Roy and David Masters http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch125.html#Media
Greg Szymanski's popular "Voices for Freedom" gave his listeners an opportunity to express themselves in a 1-minute time spot in return for a donation to support RBN (Republic Broadcasting Network). Twas an advertising invitation which would benefit both the voiceless public and RBN radio network. I had participated in an early Szymanski's "Voices for Freedom" campaign and was quite satisfied with the experience.
However, I got the feeling my present message "I AM A CHRIST" See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/achrist.html was not about to see the RBN airwaves this time around. My message is simple. We are All Christs, simple, Sovereign, Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural men and women, Sons and Daughter of Divine Intelligence -- God.
This follows John's earlier rude behavior to my wife and rejection of my books and tapes for advertising on the RBN web site.
Anita, my wife, sent a check for $100 to air the "Voices for Freedom" recording and it was cashed on 3-15-07. A contract was struck.
The religionists, the politicians and their banker/corporate Satanic Patrons DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW your true Status, your True Estate -- that THEY ARE FICTIONS WHILE YOU ARE REAL. If you understood my simple message "I AM A CHRIST" http://www.arkenterprises.com/achrist.html and acted upon it NOW in your life, we, the Sovereign People, would BREAK THE BACK OF SATANIC MIND CONTROL, REMOVE THEIR DEATH-BOUND INFLUENCE OVER US IN OUR LIVES, AND LIVE THE LIFE THAT AWAITS US -- AS THE MEEK WHO SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH. We would no longer live the lives of helpless "MUNCHKINS" at the mercy of the Wicked elitists who rule the LAND OF OZ, the land of Illusion.
Following is a chronological synopsis of the events which lead up to April 23rd, the day my "Voices for Freedom" message was to appear on Greg's Show -- http://www.arkenterprises.com/achrist.html The Message they don't want you to hear..
3-5-07 Ray to Greg:
Greg,
If you are still offering messages as your Voices of Freedom feature, I've put together a new site, and have distilled my messages and experiences, separating them from the Noise which has stalked it everywhere I went on the Internet.
The message is timely, and yes, you and I are STILL going in the same direction.
Let me know what the rate is to post it for a month, and the check will be in the mail.
Thanks
Ray
3-19: Greg to Ray Ray...please send your one minute and 30 second clip again and I need to get it to RBN...thanks
3-22: Ray to Greg: By the way, whats the hangup with the sound file? Nows the time to pull it all together and break the back of Government Tyranny.
4-2-07 Greg to Ray: please send another audio version of your message as I sent it to RBN and they misplaced...i will get on it this week and start airing message next week...i have been out with dental surgery...
4-2-07 Ray to Greg: Greg, Here is the Resend!! Third time!! Shape those guys up at RBN
4-6-07 Greg to Ray: sent audio clip to RBN and should start playing your voices of freedom by mid week...i also will put an audio link on my web site...thanks again and sorry for delay but i have had some dental problems
4-17-07 Greg to Ray: Ray, I am going to start to play it next Monday.(Apr. 23, 2007) ..please send another copy...there will be no problem with Stadtmiller...trust me we will get it going as I left it off the air as I have been battling dental surgery and wanted to make sure I was live five days a week before I started playing it...thanks for your patience
4-17-07: Ray to Greg: I'm glad you clarified that. I was truly concern about RBN's motives. I wanted to get it on to reinforce support for Ed and Elaine Brown before their Sentencing hearing. Greg there a momentum building on that program that is found nowhere else on RBN. John Stadtmiller can't be that blind to keep beating that dead horse of ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE ORGANIZE. Here's another copy. of the sound file. Ray
For me, the veil has been lifted, and all parties stand in the light of Truth. All is not what it appears to the SHEEPLE who look for guidance and Truth from their celebrity ICONS on Patriot Radio. They are kept divided and conquered by the leadership, friend and foe alike. Sort of Satanic Damned if you do and Damned if you don't, eh?
If you think I have colored my position, and have exaggerated in this article, please read the following and re-ask yourself: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? Until each of you understand your True Estate as Sovereign People and trust yourselves instead of Public Relations Expert Spin Doctors, you shall NEVER know freedom in this lifetime.
I have been at this Awakening of my blind brothers and sisters since 1993. I'm still at it, but I am still standing ALONE, having acted with NO SUPPORT from many who have said they are behind me, but when it comes to actively standing with me in EXPOSING Satanic Government, they are nowhere to be seen.
My Spiritual Brother and Sister, Ed Brown and his wife Elaine are experiencing the same thing. Granted they have many who profess to be behind them now but will they be there when it comes time to act?
Here are some sound files which expose your favorite talk show hosts for what they truly are. WAKE UP AMERICA.
John Stadtmiller and Alex Jones
Moment of Truth on "Truth Talk Radio."
http://www.arkenterprises.com/aljohn15.html
John Stadtmiller
Resistance=Slavery: Boycott=Freedom
http://www.arkenterprises.com/boycott3.html
Alex Jones
Christ, Censorship, and NWO Shills Who Control the Radio Airwaves
http://www.arkenterprises.com/ajcensor.html
Media Unmasked Re: Roy and David Masters
http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch125.html#Media
Note THAT Alex Jones' Tactic was identical to that of David Masters, Son of Mind Controller/Hypnotist Roy Masters depicted on
http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch125.html#Media
By: Raymond Ronald
Karczewski©
A response to the man who wrote: "THIS MAN NEEDS TO GET OUT MORE"
Roth & Company Tax Updates
http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/002427.php#002427
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ua: = Unknown Author
January 18, 2007
THIS MAN NEEDS TO GET OUT MORE
ua: > A New Hampshire man on trial for tax evasion has barricaded himself in his home. If this report from the Boston Globe is any indication, he may be taking more trouble than it's worth:
ua: > PLAINFIELD, N.H. --Ed Brown, with a handgun tucked in his pants and home prepared for a raid, hunkered down in his cement-walled home and waited for the U.S. marshals to descend.
ua: >The law never came.
ua: >Brown, on trial with his wife for not paying federal income taxes since 1996, faces charges of conspiring to evade taxes, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large transactions. He said there is no law that requires federal income taxes.
ua: >He should have called me a long time ago. I could have saved him some trouble:
rk: Don't be so Cocky about your own limitation of Intellect, your own unawareness. Keep reading.
ua: > "Show me the law and I'll pay the taxes," said Ed Brown, who met with reporters standing in his driveway Wednesday.
Ed, if you're reading this, follow along closely:
ua: > U.S. Code Title 26, Section 1, has the useful name "Tax Imposed." It begins:
ua: > (a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
ua: > There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of--
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who
makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,
and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
ua: > a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
ua: > Section 1 goes on to list the taxes and rates on single individuals, heads of households, and estates and trusts, as well.
ua: > "Taxable Income" is defined in Section 63 of Title 26. Other sections of Title 26 will give you helpful definitions like "gross income." And Section 6012 provides a useful listing those required to file tax returns.
ua: > Mr. Brown, now that you've been shown the law that requires you to pay taxes, I'm sure you can work out something with the government. And good luck with the standoff thing.
ua: > More here.
ua: > UPDATE: Guilty on all counts.
rk: To the advice giving author of this piece, pay attention now for you will see what you had not the eyes to see before it was pointed out to you by the "Spiritually Sighted."
rk: First direct you attention to your own comment which states:
ua: > "It begins:
ua: > "(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses"
rk: Do you not see that such cited law applies only to those who FILE, who VOLUNTEER to pay such unlawful taxes by their act of volunteer filing?
rk: When you FILE, you grant jurisdiction to the FICTION through contract and become subject to the rules thereof.
rk: If Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, natural men or women DO NOT FILE, they do not VOLUNTARILY enter into contract or grant JURISDICTION to the government FICTION. They are NOT SUBJECT to the rules of the FICTION
rk: In other words, without such filing, a FICTIONAL corporate government HAS NO JURISIDICTION over a Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient Natural man or woman, Son and Daughter of God. Do you have the eyes to see such SIMPLICITY, which your blind intellect has missed?
rk: I clearly see what Ed and Elaine See, but millions of blind, mind controlled believers trained to react to the letter of the word DO NOT SEE, as they have been subjected to a lifetime of incremental and unrelenting Satanic mind control..
rk: The Browns follow God's Law. Blinded intellectuals such as you, the author of this piece, are enslaved by man's law, YOU VOLUNTEERED FOR IT!!
Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- A Living Christ
By: Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Has anybody noticed the impotence of the authorities to swiftly carry out the execution of the Unlawful Court Conviction of Ed and Elaine Brown? Should not that be telling the American Public something about the quality of their present justice system?
For those who have been through the legal process, there is no mystery to the delay in federal law enforcement's carrying out the order of the court. It is because they are skating on thin ice in their unlawful rule, and more and more Americans are waking up to their game.
The courts have their hands full with the people who are awakening to their True status as Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural men and women -- Sovereign Sons and Daughters of God who now refuse to waive their rights or contract, consent, or grant jurisdiction to the FICTIONAL court. Without such, the FICTION Courts have no power to carry out the policies of Mammon.
In my own personal case, when I began to hold my Josephine County, Oregon public officials, Judges, DA's and Sheriff personally responsible for their unlawful conspiracy to cover up actions in their agent's kidnapping, armed robbery, and holding this Living, Breathing, Flesh-and Blood, Sentient, Natural man hostage on the pretext of a traffic infraction -- itself, not a jailable offense (but nevertheless it didn't prevent them from taking me at gunpoint), they knew they had a problem on their hands when I set out to seek remedy for their actions by using their own UCC lien process.
Their immunitity of public office could not protect them privately via the UCC liens, so Josephine County, Oregon District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON resorted to government CYA (Cover Your Ass) tactics and conjured up a secret Grand Jury Indictment and sat on it for 6 months waiting to see whether I would go beyond the personal UCC filings of the Individuals and file the lien against the STATE OF OREGON and COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE..
When I filed the lien, they arrested me for being a "Paper Terrorist" under the Patriot Act; i.e., "Simulation of Legal Process" (the filing of the liens). After all, how could government possibly continue to carry on their business of raping, robbing, and holding folks Hostage for Ransom if they were going to be held responsible for their actions? If you folks think this is an exaggeration, read up on the events as they unfolded on my web site http://www.arkenterprises.com/index11.html
Now the Fiction government follows the same pattern with Ed and Elaine Brown. How long will the Fiction government wait to carry out the sentence of the unlawful, unconstitutional, non-Article III Court over those they had no jurisdiction over? Will they wait the Brown's out, to work their PR Magic on the Populace like Waco before they go in for the kill? Will they go in with Guns Blazing, like Ruby Ridge? Or will they admit defeat at the hands of Truthful, Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural man and woman, husband and wife, Son and Daughter of God?
Or will the authorities of Mammon wait 6 months like they did in my case?
What amazes me is the paralysis of the American public observing how irrational our government has become. They stand like the deer in the headlights, awaiting certain death. Is that what America has become -- a self-destructive society that cares not what happens to their neighbor, as long as they are not the target of government?
Are you people Nutz, or what? This is your country, not the government's. This is your life. You are responsible for it and your neighbor. When tyrants come after Ed and Elaine Brown or Raymond Karczewski, what makes you believe that YOUR TIME WILL NOT COME??!!
Will History repeat itself?
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Rev Martin Niemoeller Nazi Victim
Your future and that of your Children depends on your actions today. Ask yourselves the Question: Who is the real enemy -- Could it be --- SATAN?!!
Stephen R. Monier
United States Marshal
Re: Ed and Elaine Brown
April 29, 2007
Marshal Monier,
My name is Raymond Ronald Karczewski©. I am an honorably retired Police Sergeant living on pension in Southern Oregon.
I am sure you took the same Oath I took when I began my career. It was an oath which, amongst other things, was a promise to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
What came of that oath? Do you still honor it? Do your associates honor it? If you did, you would personally not be taking the unlawful actions you are threatening to take against Ed and Elaine Brown.
The Federal Reserve and its collection agency, the IRS, is not a government operation, never was, never will be. Yet you take your position amongst others as one of its enforcers. The IRS is a collection agency for a private banking corporation, owned and controlled by Foreign Banking Interests that has for decades perpetrated a scam upon the Sovereign American People and drained them of their life's assets through trick and deceit.
The court which has passed sentence upon Ed and Elaine Brown is not a Constitutional Article III court. It does not recognize Common Law, nor does it recognize the rights of a Sovereign People. It is a private, corporate Administrative Court engaged in executing "Corporate" policies over those whom they have "Jurisdiction", i.e., Subjects of the Corporation. Ed and Elaine are of the Sovereign People whose rights arise from our Creator. No government has the right to infringe upon their Unalienable Rights. Yet that is what the Adminstrative Court which convicted Ed and Elaine have sought to do and have accomplished. They denied Ed and Elaine a fair trial. How fair can any trial be when those brought before it are not allowed to present witnesses on their behalf or present evidence for that matter? Yet you are ready to carry out this Unconstitutional, unlawful court's directives which are null and void and carry with them no force of law.
You see Marshall Monier, I as a retired police sergeant, have experienced what Ed, Elaine, and thousands of others now sitting in an ever-growing Corporate prison system have experienced in our land by a Court system that no longer acts as a servant of Justice, a servant of the Sovereign American People, but carries out, protects, and defends the bottom line interests of the Bankers and Corporate Leaders who have swindled the American People out of their Heritage.
Marshall Monier, my comments are not based in "speculative theory", but in actual experiences. The very acts for which I was convicted in an unlawful Court here in Oregon, I continue to do long after I was thrown out of their jail for refusing to accept the contract of sentencing. If these acts were a crime in the year 2002, why are they not a crime in 2007? I have continued to hold my public officials responsible for their unlawful and corrupt behavior, by serving papers on the Governor and Attorney General of Oregon, which would be a violation in their voided and nullified conditions of probation, yet they will not arrest me. If that does not offer proof of the Sham of the Two Trials I underwent, NOTHING DOES.
As in Ed and Elaine's case, the court refused to prove in writing, as the law of the land dictates, proof of jurisdiction over this Living, Breathing, Flesh-and Blood, Sentient, Natural Man. I am home, a Free man because I stood my ground as a Sovereign man of the People, and they knew their Corporate policies could not shake or intimidate me. You may research my case at http://www.arkenterprises.com/index11.html if you are so inclined.
You, sir, and your law enforcement associates are regarded as "Societys Hired Thugs" a phrase heard from my police chief which shall resonate with me to my dying day.
I have awakened from my ignorance, and I plead that my fellow law enforcement officers awaken from theirs before they step over the line and sell their souls, their integrity, for a job which requires they corrupt their souls in order for them to receive their worldy perks.
There was no need for Waco, yet there was one.
There was no need for Ruby Ridge, yet there was one.
Marshall Monier with clarity of mind, I ask you to examine yourself and determine whom do you serve: The Sovereign People, or Shadowy policy makers of the Bankers and Corporate Institutions.
It is through people like you, that we can recover our sanity from a purposely designed "insane" mind controlled society. I acknowledge that you have a duty to follow orders, but it does not extend to carrying out the NAZI protocol of "just following orders, just doing my job," does it?
Marshall Monier, I hope that you have heard deeply what I have communicated to you and your associates. It is time for the real criminals to be put in jail.
Ed and Elaine Brown ARE NOT ONE OF THEM!!
My best to you
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Cave Junction Oregon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The marshal's letter to the Browns
'These warrants are not going away'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 25. 2007 8:00AM
Proceedings in the U.S. District Court have now concluded. You have been convicted of felony offenses against the United States, and have now been sentenced to a period of confinement in the United States Bureau of Prisons. This is now a matter for the U.S. Marshals Service and their law enforcement partners.
As you both know, there are outstanding warrants for your arrests. To date, you have made statements threatening law enforcement if attempts are made to serve those warrants. This creates a public safety concern for the community and subjects both you, and anyone who may be assisting you with this obstruction of justice, to further prosecution.
Until they are served, these warrants are not going away, and neither is law enforcement. The United States Marshals Service has maintained an open line of communication with both of you. We have, and will continue to take, all reasonable steps to resolve this peacefully. But, in order to remedy the situation you have placed yourselves in, without subjecting yourselves to further liability, here is what you need to do:
1. Contact us to make arrangements, and
2. Surrender peacefully to the United States Marshals Service.
You have my assurance that you will be treated professionally, with courtesy and respect. This is the right thing for you to do, and I encourage you to do it.
Sincerely,Stephen R. MonierUnited States Marshal
This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.
The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.
One of the very first of your state statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt:
In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:
(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
(3) The word "person" includes: an individual, firm, association, joint venture, partnership, trust, business trust, syndicate, fiduciary, limited liability company, association, cooperative, corporation whether or not organized for profit, estate and all other groups or combinations.
NOTE HOWEVER, THE STATUTE DEFINITION DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN -- THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!
Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.
Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.
If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your state legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :
1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person . . .
2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person . . .
3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . . .
4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . .
5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person . . .
Notice that only "persons" can commit these state legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "state." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.
The State leaders will never allow any plain language to be used in a law, so the lawyers who work as legislative draftsmen are then able to write the statute laws in such a way as to rely solely on contextual framework to determine who is actually covered by the statute and who is not. Let's explore the contextual framework of the "person" upon whom most statutes are imposed.
The first thing that is important to note about the statutory definition of person is that other than the word "individual" (discussed below), every one of the entities listed is clearly only a "statutory legal fiction". A statutory legal fiction is a legal entity (called a "person") that exists because the legislature has brought it into existence by simply passing a law that authorizes its creation. The most commonly recognized "statutory fiction" is a corporation. You should re-read the above "person includes:" statute definition as many times as is necessary, and let it sink firmly into your brain.
[A quick and easy test to determine if something is a legal fiction is this: If it can sue you in court, but it has no flesh and blood, it's a legal fiction.]
Because these statutory legal fictions are created by the State, they are subject to absolute regulation by the State solely on the basis of "public policy" considerations.
Since all of the words used within the definition of "person" are "legal fictions", how then should we view the word "individual"? And remember, we are ascertaining the proper meaning and application of a statute definition through context.
The first question that we would ask is whether or not an "individual" is a Citizen. Since a Citizen merely by living on the land in a state of the Union is definitely not exercising any legislated or granted privilege, then such a Citizen cannot be the "individual" used in the definition dealing with legal fictions - at least not in their private capacity. But what if the "individual" is a woman, or a man (Citizen or not) who is employed in the government or holds a position of authority and responsibility within one of those legal fictions such as a corporate officer?
Since a "legal fiction" can't be put in jail, there has to be someone that the government can ultimately hold accountable for wrongdoing. So what is the definition of "person" for crimes? Most criminal statutes will read similar to this:
Person - The term ''person'' as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
Ah...so when a real-live-flesh-and-blood person (referred to by lawyers as a "natural person") is held accountable for criminal non-compliance with the law, he is held accountable only in his capacity as the officer or employee, under a duty to perform, on behalf of the corporate "legal fiction".
It is reasonable then that the "individual" listed in the statutes is simply a natural person who is under a duty to perform, or not perform, an act regarding the statute law being imposed upon the legal fiction.
Of course under the statutes it is entirely likely that "individual", when used within the definition of "person", is also anyone who voluntarily acquired some license or permit, thus entering into a contractural agreement with the State, thereby making them self a "statutory individual" (as such word is used within the definition of "person").
Who else might the word "individual" include? Could it include an alien residing in this country? Of course. This can easily be seen by the fact that aliens legally entering this country must receive written permission from the Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to work in this country.
Who else might the word "individual" include? Let's see what Black's Law Dictionary has to say. After pointing out that the word "individual" can mean a "natural person as distinguished from partnership, [or] corporation…", it goes on to say;
"...but it is said this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
In case you're wondering, an "artificial person" is simply another way of saying, "a legal fiction"! Boy, the lawyers are a tricky bunch aren't they?
So now we have three meanings for the word "individual" as it is used within the definition of "person":
1. A natural person under a duty as an official of a corporation or other legal fiction.
2. A natural person who created liability through a contract agreement with the State.
3. A non-specified form of other a "legal fiction", not appearing in the definition.
Given varying circumstances, "individual" may mean one or more of those definitions, but one thing is for sure - in a statute, the word "individual" never means a private Citizen. Why? Because a private man or woman Citizen has an "unalienable right" to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, to acquire, possess, and dispose of their private property without any interference from the government.
We now know what "individual" does and does not mean, and now we have a much better understanding of precisely what the word "person" means when used in a statute!
Since we know that every other entity (except "individual") is a legal fiction, and we know what "individual" does and does not mean, we now know that "person" (when applied in a statute) does not mean a private Citizen or their own private property in the course of private transactions with other men and women Citizens.
Because a private Citizen must be excluded from the word "individual" on Constitutionally mandated grounds, the contextual framework has been clearly staked out and after having excluded a man or woman Citizen, the statute law may only properly be applied to those who do not have any unalienable right.
We have now learned that "person" means:
1. Any statutory fiction of law (not exempt by statute).
2. An "individual".
We have now learned that "individual" means:
1. A natural person under a duty as an official of a corporation or other fiction.
2. A natural person who created liability through an agreement with the State.
3. All other legal fictions, not otherwise appearing in the definition of "person".
So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by state statutes and laws ?
There is only one way. You must ask the state for permission or volunteer to become a state person. You must ask or volunteer because the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.
13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You become a state created statutory "person" by taking up "residency" with the state and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within the state government in order for that state government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in state government, the legislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the State Constitution.
The most common office held in a state is therefore the office known as "person." Your state legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.
The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of law, that what one creates, one controls. This natural law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.
The way the state gets around God's law and thereby controls the people is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU.
Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of state government are hundreds of other state created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.
The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official state office.
They have created the office of "PERSON."
The state creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common state office of all, the office of "person." Anyone filling one of these state offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the state legislature. Through the state created office of "person," the state gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "what one creates, one controls."
A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person." It literally means "the mask an actor wears."
The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the "office" of "person," which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask.
A resident is another state office holder.
All state residents hold an office in the state government.
But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of "person."
Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons.
Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons.
Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons.
An attorney is a state officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are "licensed" to practice law by the state Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators - no attorney mayors - no attorneys as police - no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office holding by attorneys is prohibited by the constitution and is a felony in most states.
If you read farther into your state constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:
Branches of government -- The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.
Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.
Because these "offices" are not persons, the state will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the state in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from state employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or state employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the state will not eat its own.
The reason all state residents hold an office is so the state can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the state. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the state. If you read the fine print when you apply for a state license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that state.
"Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the state, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.
They will always say that we are free men. But they will never tell you that the legislatively created offices that you are occupying are not free.
They will say, "All men are free," because that is a true statement.
What they do not say is, that holding any state office binds free men into slavery for the state. They are ever ready to trick you into accepting the state office of "person," and once you are filling that office, you cease to be free men. You become regulated creatures, called persons, totally created by the legislature. You will hear "free men" mentioned all the time, but you will never hear about "free persons."
If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will be built on shifting sands. The office can be changed and manipulated at any time to conform to the whims of the legislature. When you hold the office of "person" created by the legislature, your office isn't fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each legislative session binds a "person" to ever more burdens and requirements in the form of more rules, laws and statutes.
Most state constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental power of the people:
Political power -- All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.
Notice that this says "people" it does not say persons. This statement declares beyond any doubt that the people are Sovereign over their created government. This is natural law and the natural flow of delegated power.
A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any state legislature which was created by the people.
When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, "You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will ?"
Now the state office of policeman knows that "IT" is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the state legislature can only regulate what they create. And the state does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a state "person."
Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the state's charges? Because of the concept of office. The state is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as "person." If you are not in that state created office of "person," the state statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the state of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the state to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office.
Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).
The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983). Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:
"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).
The majority of American states fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979).
The following U.S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals.
I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that states and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.
... A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. ...
Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the state has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the state; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the state. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several states, of which our union is composed. By a state I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a state a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. ...
It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject.
No such ideas obtain here(speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed 440.
There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of "person." One is by receiving state benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the state.
One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person," is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a state bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of "person" if you start answering their questions.
It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them.
You are not a "person" subject to their laws.
If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him :
I have no need to answer you in this matter.
It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges.
It is none of your business whether I want counsel.
The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the state. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The state legislature does not dictate what I do.
I am a free Sovereign "Man"(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the State Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you..
You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a state officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their "legal" system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become "NON COMPOS MENTIS", not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything discussed here to free yourself.
The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the state, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the state may not lawfully move against you.
The state did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.
When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those state employees in legislative created offices.
This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S. Supreme Court case:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your Rights, demand them, "stand upon" them.
Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way."
Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.
Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.
Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the state.
Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial by jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.
Then the case says, "Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.
Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes.
If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. The OUTLAWS have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found :
"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.
So if the state through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the state created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the state lacks all jurisdiction over you. The state needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts.
A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are in propria persona or simply "PRO PER", as your own counsel and you need no other.
Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the state's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign peoples command in the constitution that the state respect their privacy :
Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.
If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally.
Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", Try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person" ever again.
This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all state control.