Never invite the private Federal "only for D.C.

& it's territories" policy enforcers into your life or home. because, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, with the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted. Pollards Lessee Vs. Hagan., 44 U.S. 212 at 223. Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17., U.S. Constitution. The woman I am referring to...(video of woman letting police in her house to deal with her son that she was arguing with.... they SHOT her son dead, maliciously) she has no "legal" right to complain, because she GRANTED them jurisdiction. Only YOU can BE a LAWFUL American...know the law, know your rights. Because she did not know the law or those who do not follow law. ( a.k.a. Police-private security officers of municipal, legislative federal policies or OTHER forms of government for their citizens, those who are in charter agreements violating our REPUBLIC form of GOVT...ahem... within a state, acting on behalf of or in replacement/usurpation of the organic state or city by natural born Americans under law. ETc. She should have known the law which appeals to the "common law" right to "private" affairs, without ANY govt interference. NOTE: "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 duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, 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 warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Hale Vs. Henkel., 201 U.S. 43 at 74 (1906). " But what is happening is that people have traded their IDENTITY in common law and their Sovereign status for a legal "person" which is a contract created identity subject to the Federal corporation. ( You do this with licensing, receiving benefits, agreeing to being under their charter, "social security, birth registrations, car registrations,marriage licenses, 501-c3 church status=incorporation, from the Latin:Corpse=dead, making the dead state your headship, ruler, owner, etc etc, ) Thus the Federal STATE OF is acting by..contract, agreement BY you and it's OWN laws (charter), called "legal right" within it's own jurisdiction (admiralty, Commercial codes/statue "color of law(s)", etc) and rules over It's own subjects or those who agreed to it. A.K.A.-Corporate "citizen-persons". NOTE: "... the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws (called legal) of the State and the limitations of its charter.(statute code)

Its powers are limited by law.(real law/common law/Constitutional law) It can make no contract not authorized by its charter.(legally) Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its charter.(obeys it's own legal codes,applies them to ONLY it's own people) Pinkerton Vs. Verberg., 78 MIFC. 573, 584." It's the same when a couple takes a "state" marriage license and then finds the state can take their kids-or- when during a marriage one can call the goons to deal with the other spouse. It is all about a nanny state and people not taking personal responsibility for their own actions and/or having friends, family & church deal with private matters. Women typically appeal to the "other man" a.k.a. the "state" to deal with the man in their life they are through with. THe marriage was "always" a 3-way and the "head/state" man, takes over on her behalf. She in spiritual terms is his mistress, in legal terms she is the "head" of her family as the "state" deems "her" the head to disempower the "other man/husband" for it's advantage int he whole thing. When you appeal to the government of corporate "legal" ( not Constitutional or common law) policy ( marriage license means your incorporated into the state-it's a 3-way trust, ) then you cannot expect NORMAL justice, they do not deal in that, they deal in corporate policies, by statute laws in admiralty courts of commodities, merchandise, & wardship over THEIR goods, possessions and "human resources". You've been pledge UNDER the agreement (by the private fed reserve system) and therefore the U.S. seeks to get you to agree to being a policy holder, employee, tenant, resident, worker, person, spouse, parent,driver, etc.which are ALL legal terms, WITHIN their legal policy/Charter, but not lawful, unless YOU AGREE to it, then your bound. When the president, police etc say they are protecting the PUBLIC or the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES they are NOT protecting the American people, but ONLY those under their PUBLIC corporation (charter laws/statute code/legal terms). The UNITED STATES ...IS not the same thing as THe United States of AEmrica. READ & SEE: In addition to this, however, the United States are not one of the class of corporations intended by law to be exempt [163 U.S. 625, 631] from taxation. What the corporations are to which the exemption was intended to apply are indicated by the tax laws of New York, and are confined to those of a religious, educational, charitable, or reformatory purpose. We think it was not intended to apply it to a purely political or governmental corporation, like the United States. -- US v. PERKINS, 163 U.S. 625 (1896) And further U.S. Code - TITLE 28, PART VI, CHAPTER 176, SUBCHAPTER A, 3002 (15) "United States" means (A) a Federal corporation;(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of theUnited States; or(C) an instrumentality of the United States. The TRUST created by contract with private bankers in 1913 and then when we went into bankruptcy in 1933 the President declared us under emergency powers & executive order.This is WHEN the Constitutional protection of American NATURAL rights ended. They incorporated

everyone by force. They agree in their new legal system to HONOR the Constitution and/or common law, because otherwise they would be seen as tyrants to the TRUE law and the American people's Sovereignty but like the liars of the old world, they always break contracts,(and we do nothing) rewrite the terms of the agreement ( statute codes of no real crimes, usually) and then proceed to be lawbreakers, justifying it with the codes(and force) they use within their private company, operating in the public by contracts. Because people THINK it is the LAW ot the "only law" , they allow the use of force against them...when we should, deal with the bastards who enslave people in courts, jails and the like by their "LEGAL" but UNLAWFUL acts. When they dishonor the REAL LAW they are lawbreakers. When they dishonor THEIR OWN CHARTER, which they do all the time, they are also lawbreakers. Note:" "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442" Contracts are LAWFUL but they are not mandatory THIS IS THE TRICK. Always has been.. .IF YOU AGREE To the contract then in LAW you are bound to "legal". But THEY are ALSO are bound to OBEY their own Charter and the Constitution, FOR the American people, when they don't they are again, LAWBREAKERS. You MAY be a policy breaker, a statute breaker, a legal breaker as it were,... but they have no right to break the law, or afford themselves immunity and first class citizens via the BAR...or Federal policy. This is nothing but pure arrogance on their part and we let them have guns...bad move on our part. This corporation called UNITED STATES is AT WAR with the sovereign people of America. FACT. They are two different things in LAW. The U.S. is one thing, the U.S.A. is another. FACT. We have every right to remove the corporation, the usurpers and the tyrants, IF we defend America "lawfully" and not in contract with the corporate company called UNITED STATES, we have ALL of our rights, we are just not using them. Citizens OF the corporation THINK they are regular old Americans but they are not. They call for the abolish-ment of the Fed but THEY THEMSELVES have agreed to the contract. They are incorporated "citizens" which is defined differently in LAW. They need to KNOW their IDENTITY and then drop their contracts but you see...they'd have to drop use of the banking system..THAT is one of the contracts we are bound under. IT runs on commercial "legal" policy, NOT common or Constitutional protected law. A free man or woman cannot be a commercial citizen, it is an oxymoron and WHY only the LAW and the RESTORED Republic of people operating under LAW, can be of any use to Americans & their freedom. Laws of noteworthyness: A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.

Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda vs. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966). The Constitution of the United States of America is not only the Supreme Law of the Land in and under the Common Law, the very term, Law of the Land itself means the Common Law. Law of the Land means the Common Law. State Vs. Simon., 2 Spears 761, 767 (1884) Justice ONeal. Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803) It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall he made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Law of the Land means The Common Law.Taylor vs. Porter, 4 Hill. 140, 146 (1843) Justice Bronson. Websters definition of Law of the Land at Dartmouth, 4 Wheat. 518, 581.The CONSITUION,as the law of the land, has to honor the COMMON LAW and then the Federal or State laws have to abide under that...period. When it or they do not, they are LAWBREAKERS. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. Marbury vs. Madison, 2 Cranch. (5 U.S.) 137, 176, 177 (1803). because, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, with the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted. Pollards Lessee Vs. Hagan., 44 U.S. 212 at 223. Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17., U.S. Constitution. That the Legislative, Executive and Judicial departments are each formed in a separate and independent manner; and that the ultimate basis of each is the Constitution only within the limits of which each department can alone justify any act of authority jurisdiction. Hayburns Case. 2 Dali. (2 U.S.) 409. Neither the Legislative, Executive nor the judicial departments of the Federal Government can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out by the Constitution. Dred Scott Vs. Sanford., 19 How, 393. Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution.Eisner vs. McComber, 252 U.S. 189 at 207. http://www.libertyatlaw.com/?p=19 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.Miranda vs. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966). Period. Which IS the law of the land under common law. Including the right to protection of self, papers, home, etc. Protected by who? You..wake up. Quit expecting THEM the "private corporate chartered police" to protect you when it is NOT thier job, they are under corporate charter, policy, statute codes..protecting THEIR citizens of the democratic public good. NOT the Republic good or you.

YOU have to protect that..! You have the right to remain silent....but "why" would you? Only YOU can declare your standing, or GIVE them your consent. But you MUST honor the code that YOU agreed to. IF you gave them consent to be governed. When you dishonor it, they are justified in enforcing their rules, fines, fees, taxes, levys, statutory crimes, legal-"things" because you agreed to it. They do not but "honor" the law, nor do they "honor" their own codes & the ONLY way out is to NOT contract AND to declare your standing, either you are indeed free or you are playing Fedopoly, while "thinking your free. Their job is to "protect" your rights? No that is what you THINK they are to do, they changed the deal, you ignored it, they do not have to tell you. It is against the LAW to bring a suit against an American, betcha didn't kow that...but see? THis is in law and they are operating in LEGAL=BIG DIFFERENCE. So how do they do this? They are a "Foreign corporation" and YOU contracted with them-or- incorporated into their "political jurisdiction by agreement" , they are holding you in honor to your word/bond/seal, while they do nothing of the sort..btw. When they are in dishonor you have every right to walk away. You are FREE, just some FYI..why honor tyrants, liars & thieves/thugs anyway? It is all, offer & acceptance. This is how they justify themselves as not "making you" do anything. The way out is to NOT play the game. admiralty law, law of the seas, privateers, but really PIRATES on the lose as the King's men...collecting for their masters. When I was a child I played with childish things, suffering the liars who lied to win at games, but now I am grown up, are you? Hope so...know the law, know your rights..& KNOW your enemy. * ***** **** **