Subject: Law Quotes:

 

Democracy has become a rallying cry to disguise the murder and mayhem being done at America's expense.

 

What IS democracy that would authorize the expenditure of American lives and property in the destruction of other governments, people and their property? Did you authorize the mayhem and murder? I didn't. Webster's dictionary defines democracy as a government by the people, usually through elected representatives; social equality; and the principle of the Democratic party.

Black's Law dictionary is different.

"DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432.

 

Funny thing about democracy. The United States constitution makes no mention of it. In fact, it promises a "republican form" to the States united. [Art.4, Sec.4]

"GOVERNMENT (Republican Government)-

 

One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people  and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people,  to whom those powers are specially delegated."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695.

 

When one reads these two definitions, one might get the impression that they're synonymous. That's what "someone" wants you to presume. The law is based upon words,  and the art of words is the lawyer's sword. In casual reading, one might assume that "system of representation" and "representative" are one and the same.

 

Also, one might assume that "whole body of citizens" and "people" are synonymous, too. Assume nothing and you might be correct. According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to (A) help secure rights (no guarantees!), and (B) govern by consent (no coercion!). Many people presume that voting is how one gives consent to be governed. However, there is no way to say "NO". If one cannot say no, one cannot deny consent. It would be more accurate to say democracy is the form of government in which the citizens govern indirectly and are directly governed.

 

Based on the Declaration of Independence, that would mean that citizens have given consent to be governed. What about those who haven't consented? Who are the sovereigns, mentioned in the republican form of government? Are they American citizens ... the term `citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term" subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
- State v. Manuel, 122 N.C. 122; 14 Corpus Juris Secundum Sec. 4



"CITIZEN - ...

Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity,

 have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual

as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244



"SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government."

- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

From these three definitions, it clear that a citizen cannot be a sovereign.

A citizen is a subject of a sovereign. In a democracy, he cannot directly wield
sovereign power, as does the sovereign in the republican form. WHO are the sovereigns?
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative. "Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
 
"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country. "Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463 These (and many other references) refer to people being sovereign. Yet we have seen that citizens are defined as subjects in the law. If one born in the United States is a U.S. citizen, who are those people who aren't citizens that the government is servant to?

Everyone born in the United States of America CANNOT be automatically enrolled into

U.S. citizenship. Frankly, involuntary servitude is unconstitutional. The duties and obligations of citizenship are involuntary servitude if they're imposed at birth.

 

The trick is knowing that the term "United States" refers to the Federal government and its territory, not the United States of America. The 14th amendment stated that those born or naturalized under the jurisdiction of the United States were U.S. citizens. As we all should know, that amendment was for bestowing citizenship upon the freed slaves who had no legal standing in any state. The United States Congress doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction WITHIN a state, ergo, it can't impose its citizenship upon everyone. People born within the United States of America, who aren't U.S. citizens, must be the sovereigns. And, no, the government is not sovereign over the people. "Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power." City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1

Now you understand why criminal cases are styled "The People of the State of ____" versus defendant. They aren't styled "The Citizens of the State..."The government is the servant hired to (A) help secure rights of an injured party, and (B) govern the CITIZENS who consented.

So what empowers such wonderful and popular duties such as taxation and conscription?
According to the law, taxes are only due from those who are liable. The constitution delegates indirect and direct taxation powers. Indirect taxes, like imposts, duties, and excises, are uniform. Direct taxes (like capitation) are based upon population, verified by the census. Consider that curious tax called the income tax. It's not uniform rate. Nor is it based upon population.

 

The trick is simple to uncover. The income tax is not levied on "All incomes". It's levied upon income derived from revenue taxable activities. The income tax on alcohol is based on the income derived from one's taxable activity in alcohol production and sale. And it's not surprising that such tax rates are uniform.

Unfortunately, the income tax on WAGES is derived from one's consent evidenced
by enrollment into national socialism (Social Security). In legalese, they lead you to believe that wages are income,when in fact, they're a source of income - for those who are liable. That's how the Individual income tax can bypass the constitutional limitations.

 

It's a voluntary tax, where liability is created by enrollment into Social Security.

If you don't believe it, contact the IRS and ask if you can file a Form 1040 (or any other IRS tax related form) without a SSN *(taxpayer ID).They will not accept unnumbered forms. There is NO LAW requiring all Americans to enroll into Social Security. That's how the government can smile and say that the income tax is based on voluntary compliance. Most Americans don't know how they volunteered! If you never enrolled into Social Security nor asked for a TIN, you cannot be held criminally liable for "willful failure to file" (the number one criminal charge against "tax protesters").

Another clever scam is selective service. Conscription (see Title 50, United State code) is limited to citizens and residents. It specifically omits people who aren't citizens (i.e., inhabitants). It's a mistake to assume that everyone is a resident, who resides at a residence. A residence is not the same as a domicile. An inhabitant has a domicile. A resident has a residence. Why are YOU claiming residency? Could it be based on eligibility for entitlements and benefits of national socialism? No state will issue licenses, register property, or tax non-resident inhabitants.

All Americans aren't liable for conscription. Only citizens and "legal residents" are. It's all based on consent. In fact, those who have suffered the "draft" are often unaware that they were always given opportunities to stop consenting. For example, the swearing in ceremony. What would happen if one did not swear to uphold and defend the constitution?

They cannot compel you to become oath bound. Nor can one who isn't oath bound serve in government.

What proof supports the residency versus domicile argument? "RESIDENT - ...when used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant, or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more or less duration... Resident has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1309

[Note: vague, and variable in meaning]

"INHABITANT -One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.782

[Note: permanent domicile]

"DOMICILE - A person's legal home.

That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.484

[Note: legal home!]

"RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something less than domicile. The terms 'resident' and 'residence'

have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences but only one domicile]
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309

[Note: A residence is NOT a domicile (a legal home). A "legal residence" is not a legal home. It's a statutory means to give the government a handle on you and yours.]

I hope that clears things up for you. The so-called supporters of democracy aren't interested in "social equality", nor do they espouse principles of public service to the sovereign people. They are basically socialist pirates using unwitting Americans as cannon fodder to further their aims at stealing the wealth of other people.

The demons of democracy have invaded foreign lands, destroyed their government, property and people but not by consent of ALL AMERICANS.


Nor have they taxed, regulated, and otherwise impaired the property rights of the free inhabitants, domiciled within the borders of the United States of America.

The Demon-crats have only operated with the support and consent of all the numbered national socialists who have sold themselves into bondage, in exchange for access to entitlements, and accepted the burden to pay for them.

The best tactic is to just say "NO!" to national socialism and democracy, and restore one's status as a free inhabitant, domiciled upon the land. Then one can stand tall, and be proud to be an American.

 

Education Center 2000 

 

website: http://educationcenter2000.com

 

This information is brought to you by Education Center 2000.

 

Our mission is to educate consumers about secured and unsecured credit and homeowners about predatory lending practices, bank fraud and the legal options available to them. 

 

We believe that if you don't know your rights, you donít know your options.

 

Copyright © 2006 KMD Enterprises. All rights reserved.

 

| Home | Privacy Policy | Articles | Foreclosure Help | Sitemap |

| Credit Card Debt Relief  | Legal Resources | Case Law | Contact Us |

| Resources | Advertise with Us | Legal | Partners |