Unmasked! Guess who's Hiding Behind it?
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
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
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
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?!!
A Letter To U.S.
Marshall Stephen Monier
Stephen R. Monier
United States Marshal
Re: Ed and Elaine Brown
April 29, 2007
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
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,
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
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
The official state office known as "PERSON"
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
(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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
But not everyone who is a resident also holds the
office of "person."
Some residents hold the office of judge and they are
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.