RE: Trump signs memo ending 'catch and release' immigration policy and warns California for sanctuary cities.
I already foresee the lefts legal challenge to this
Trump asked Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to produce a list of military facilities that could be used to detain illegal immigrants.
possibly trying to use the Posse Comitatus Act. And given how judges often rule their feelz/bribes rather than constitutionally, I wouldn't be shocked to see this tied up in court long enough to outwait his presidency.
California plays a dangerous game. Almost from its inception, the federal government made clear that their word was law, trumping any ideas that states would have in conflict with theirs. Made evident in the civil war, the truth is we replaced one group of royalty (England) with another (Feds).
It would be interesting if the feds decided to use Ca as an example and withdraw all funding, all military personnel down to the extreme minimum necessary for the safety of the bases and formed a border with them requiring papers to cross into the rest of the U.S.
The Feds were always the Agents of the King.
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-Ig65tnTGOlAxofs0/free%20sovereign%20and%20independent_djvu.txt
While I agree with several of the statements made in that article, it is clear that the author is wrong when it comes to one declaring oneself a sovereign being within the jurisdiction of the United States. There are many who have tried such tactics via what became labeled the Freeman movement, and to my knowledge many went to prison for asserting their sovereignty and not paying to Caesar what was demanded.
I also suspect that the United States did in fact become their own sovereignty under international law, solidifying their ability to do so when they clamped down on the states so they could extract the money borrowed for the war with England. I am of the belief that We the People has not and never will include anyone not a signature or relative of one on those contracts. It would explain why common citizens (subjects) are denied constitutional rights regularly in the courts.
That's not what the author said at all. The United States is a country, or a region of land, like the North American Continent is also a region of land, nobody is declaring themselves "a sovereign being within the jurisdiction of the United States." They are declaring themselves Free, Sovereign and Independent as one of the progenies of the People of the United States, a region of land.
Except that this doesn't tell us anything, least if what they went to prison for was a lawful judgement, so what is the point, especially since we don't have an Emperor.
Which courts are those? American Common Law Courts? It doesn't explain anything, because clearly, We The People included everyone that fought, not only those that signed, and which United States are you talking about? The Unincorporated continental united States? The United States Confederacy, the Federation? The Incorporated Federal United States, the Territorial United States? Or which of the three bankrupted entities that called themselves the United States?
Skip to page 186-188 and read the speech gave before The United States of America (inc) Congress:
https://www.scribd.com/document/100879878/We-The-Sheeple-Vs-the-Banksters
Instead of trying to debate you, which I obviously do not have the information to do I will say this before saving your link for later study. In order to be a truly free and sovereign being there is a degree of recognition required by those with the power to send guns in to kidnap or murder you. Now whether they are called this version of the US or that version doesn't really matter as to the end result to the idea of one being sovereign.
There is another user here who is pretty knowledgeable who introduced me to some ideas about We the People (not his ideas, he merely passed them on). Based on the blatant disregard I see from the government when the constitution applies to the common citizen, it begins to fit with the walks like a duck, talks like a duck scenario.
I appreciate the recommendation ,thanks.
Absolutely nobody has the "power" to murder you, so when you speak about thugs with guns, you might as well ask ANY gang for a degree of recognition or demand your sovereignty from whatever murdering psychopaths you wish.
Now to exemplify how there is NOTHING to debate about what I said:
Either the people you vie for their recognition are Oath Takers, or they are Lawlessness, and either way, if you WANT that recognition it is your DUTY to establish lawfulness and secure your own Freedom, peace and make the demands you need upon all those that Serve you.
To end the debate completely, you are either a Citizen who has DUTIES to the state, or are a Sovereign, who has DUTIES to themselves, and can nobody Serve two masters and NEVER shall the role of Master and Servant be confused. Come back to this thread and start at the beginning with what I said and make notes of everything that interests you, including this:
http://annavonreitz.com/writofquowarranto.pdf
(that's about the only article on that website that isn't directly credited to Judge Anna, all the rest are dripping with information)