Your Unalienable Right To Be A Free Inhabitant!
The necessity for knowing your superior Lawful status (according to the first two Organic Laws), clarifying all legal terms, and most especially to know and exercise your natural-born Unalienable Rights - all without the limitations and denials that are imposed by so called "government" (or rather "commercial corporations in the business of providing government services --- not actual governments")!
Date: 9/17/2017 7:33:40 AM ( 4 y ) ... viewed 868 times
July 29, 2020 - The "Common Law" is Applicable to Free Inhabitants -
"The unwritten law officially recognized by the Constitution of the United States in the Seventh Amendment is the English common Law applicable to free inhabitants under the Articles of Confederation."
June 13, 2020 - Locus -
"You get to choose how you're going to describe your locus."
The locus of a "free inhabitant" would most certainly be described in terms that clearly identify a geographic location on the people's land and soil and within their jurisdiction. That may possibly be best described in terms of longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates or in terms other than that of a "State of State", "City of", etc.
May 8, 2020 - "I am a 'free inhabitant' pursuant to Article 4 of The Articles of Confederation. (Not a US citizen.)"
The first Organic Law for The United States of America (unincorporated) declared The united States free and independent of foreign external governance. The second Organic Law recognized the Unalienable Right of American individuals to continue living "free and independent of foreign external governance" as "free inhabitants" and on equal footing with State Citizens as well as State Nationals. The "second Organic Law" is "The Articles of Confederation."
However - the constitutional conveners claimed that the second Organic Law was somehow repealed, replaced and/or summarily over-ridded by the fourth Organic Law. The problem with that is there was never an act of Continental Congress or of the several State legislations that established this in Law at all! In other words there is no evidence in Law for this erroneous notion! In fact just the opposite is what we find in the Law. You can find this as well if you will look at the front page of Volume 1 of the United Staes Code. There you will see all four Organic Laws after which follows the United States Code. Do you get the picture? .........
The four Organic Laws precede all the Codes, not only in sequence of time but more importantly in that they form the original foundation for government under: The United States of America (unincorporated). The second Organic Law is still Law! The status of the "free inhabitant" continues to be the one very important (sacred) status that directly expresses an individual's Unalienable Right to be left alone by foreign external government of all kinds!
May 5, 2020 - On Equal Footing With State Nationals and/or State Citizens? -
Comment for the author of an interesting article:
The second Organic Law known as the Articles of Confederation (1777) includes the term "free inhabitants" in Article IV. These American individuals are "entitled to privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states." If you agree then wouldn't the free inhabitants be included on equal footing along with "state nationals or state citizens"?
August 30, 2018 - Article IV of the Articles of Confederation continues the spirit of freedom that was first expressed as a self-evident truth in the Declaration of Independence. Under the Articles of Confederation an inhabitant of any of the several states had the option to claim to be a "free inhabitant".
Free Inhabitant -
“Each of the original 13 States had its own citizens. However, each member state was required to recognize the ‘free inhabitants’ of their State as possessing all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States, without any of the obligations of free citizens. Thus, citizenship in the confederated States became optional.
The principals of ‘governing by the consent of the governed’ and ‘free inhabitants’ allowed each inhabitant of a confederated state to individually choose to either govern himself under the Laws of God as a ‘free inhabitant,’ or be governed by a State, as a citizen or a resident on government territory. Since the Bill of Rights of 1689, the ‘consent of the governed’ has been given through representation in legislative assembly doing the governing of the people whom are governed. ‘Free Inhabitants’ were apolitical, not able to participate in the election process for the members of their States legislature assembly, and therefore had no direct representation in that assembly. Without representation, ‘free inhabitants’ did not consent to be governed and hence were not subject to the laws by their States legislative assembly. ‘Free inhabitants’ were subject only to the English common-law.
…freedom is the result of ‘Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,’ which has to be unwritten law. Governments may not make laws for free people known as ‘free inhabitants’ as freedom is one of the unalienable rights. The requirement for consent to be governed means that Americans can individually choose to either self-govern themselves, in accordance with the laws of our Creator, aka English common-law, or choose to be governed by a State as a citizen or a resident on government territory. The equality of men and the voluntary nature to be governed by States made legislative power over free Americans impossible.”
September 17, 2017 -
The original "Spirit of American freedom" (according to my present understanding) requires (IMO) Individuals (the living souls) to "come out of" all legal fiction entrapments in order to stand Lawfully on solid ground (our Rightful soil and land-based jurisdiction as true Americans) and in order to do that we must clarify all legal terms.
Here is one common day example for instance regarding the term "driver" - In the earliest codes the distinction between drivers and travelers was clearly evident. "Drivers" were understood to be operating in commerce with their motor "vehicles" for hire either by transporting goods or people. I am not a driver. Therefore I do not need to have a driver's license. Plain and simple. In the mid-80s I voluntarily surrendered a driver's license that I was led to believe was required to travel privately (non-commercially) by car. That belief began in High School when the Driver's education teacher required that we get driving permits to operate cars as part of our training. (Students never thought to research the terms!)
Regarding "rights". Ever since the first Organic Law (The Declaration of Independence) Americans were acknowledged as having Unalienable Rights AKA natural-born Rights. These Rights do not come from government. Therefore I do not recommend claiming so called "Constitutional rights". Especially when no government agent ever gives an oath to actually "support" the "Constitution for The United States of America". I do not see real protection by claiming these kind of "rights".
I also do not recommend claiming citizenship and most especially not under the 14th Amendment (AKA US citizenship) which was a new status that was made available as of that time to the former slaves. Anyone who really wants to free themselves from voluntary slavery may want to consider renouncing their 14th Amendment US citizenship. It is called expatriation. There is a statute that addresses this. Therefore "citizen" is another term that needs to be clarified by anyone identifying themselves as a citizen.
September 22, 2019 - Etymology Regarding "Citizen." -
Sense of "freeman or inhabitant of a country, member of the state or nation, not an alien" is late 14c. Meaning "private person" (as opposed to a civil officer or soldier) is from c. 1600.
June 20, 2019 - Anna von Reitz - "The Institutionalized Crime We Are Dealing With ... Open Racketeering and Acting In Violation of Our Natural and Unalienable Right to Travel" -
"... groups, often possessing specialized skills or knowledge, and the commercial corporations they work for, both governmental and non-governmental, are the core delivery system for the institutionalized crime we are dealing with.
While the impetus and motivation for crime may begin with the self-interest of a relatively few individuals or a small group within the framework of the whole, for an example, the State of Ohio Legislature passing a Driver License Statute to pay for road improvements and pay patrolmen and 'promote public safety' back in 1923 --- if there is a profit to be made, the profit motive spreads the crime throughout the entire system like wildfire.
The State of Ohio, Inc. made a profit on licensing Drivers of Motor Vehicles, and soon every Territorial State of State organization in the country was doing the same. Technically, this was 'legal' because the legislation affected only State of Ohio employees and dependents and affected only 'Motor Vehicles'.
Remember that we are dealing here with commercial corporations in the business of providing government services --- not actual governments. As commercial corporations they are motivated by profit, not the Public Good. As commercial corporations, they can demand that their employees wear uniforms, obey private corporate laws called 'statutes', and adhere to other requirements as a condition of their employment----including licensing requirements.
So: (1) the State of Ohio, Inc., as a commercial corporation, requires its employees and dependents to register their private cars and trucks as 'Motor Vehicles' and requires them to obtain 'Driver Licenses' as a condition of their employment. (2) State of Ohio, Inc. made money by doing this. (3) Motivated by profit, all the Territorial State of State franchises were soon doing the same, and (4) by a process of assumption and non-disclosure, they gradually imposed their private corporate Public Policy upon the General Public under color of law.
The Public Employees become complicit in this process because more money for the corporation employing them means more money, more power, more benefits, and more jobs for them.
The key realization for all concerned is that these things operating 'as' our government at both the Federal and State levels are all for-profit commercial corporations, and not true governments at all.
Everyone in this whole system from the Holy See -- the final receiver and beneficiary of this system, to the State of Ohio Legislature, to the State of Ohio Court System, to the Public Employee Unions, to the lowliest junior traffic cop or officer worker at the now-privatized Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) -- is corrupted by the same private profit motive.
They are in direct conflict of interest with the Public Good and all working together as a network -- an organized crime syndicate -- to profit themselves.
Do they do some good by enforcing Driver Education and Performance standards? Yes. Do they do some evil by enforcing their Public Policies as 'law' and charging members of the General Public to pay and obey? Yes.
They are engaged in open racketeering and acting in violation of our Natural and Unalienable Right to travel.
Very little has changed since the days when Robber Barons sent out groups of armed men to waylay travelers in mountain passes and charge them tolls for the use of the road. ..."
October 2, 2018 -
Posted the following as a comment to Anna's article:
"Update: Time to End the Civil War: the Necessity of Expatriation" that was originally published at Paul Stramer's site.
On July 27, 1868, one day before the 14th Amendment took effect, an "Act" of Congress was passed. This Act was 15 United States Statute at Large, known as the "Expatriation Statute."[a] Though this Statute is no longer included in the United States Code, it has not been repealed and is still in effect.[b] This Statute is extremely important because it is the public municipal law the individual can use for private purposes to remove him/herself from the private trust law operating in the public sector.
[a] 15 United States Statutes at Large, Ch. 249-250, pps 223-224, Section 1, R.S. 1999, 8 USC 1481.
[b] Briehl v. Dulles, 248 F2d 561, 583 at footnote 21, (1957).
November 7, 2017 - The Limitations to "clarify all legal terms" via Public Law Librarians -
Received the following from a Law Librarian in a private email in response to my inquiry:
"Although I am unable to interpret legal text, I can assist you in locating the requested information. With regards to the terms you've asked about, I can say that they are used in the California Business and Professions Code and are defined in Black's Law Dictionary (as provided in my last email). Any additional interpretation of these words will need to be done via legal counsel since Law Librarians are not permitted to interpret or advise on legal text or terminology in any way.
I am not aware if Black's Law Dictionary is the California State Legislature's legal dictionary of choice for legal definitions. You may want to check with them directly regarding this question. http://www.legislature.ca.gov/ "
November 8, 2017 -
I checked the linked page (provided immediately above) and replied ti the librarian saying "I didn't see where to present my question". I trust that I'll be getting further assistance. Once I do I am anticipating having a really good time communicating with the California State Legislature on the true meaning of a couple of their essential terms.
October 3, 2018 - Comment Posted -
Thank you for “The Right to Ignore the State”.
This principal is both true and acknowledged in both the first and second (of the four) Organic Laws. In the Articles of Confederation it is identified as “free inhabitants".
According to Professor Ed Rivera (of the Organic Laws Institute) “All a person has to do to become a free inhabitant under Article IV of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 is stop acting like a citizen of the United States.”:
October 27, 2018 - A Four-Fold Perspective of All Four Organic Laws -
Re: "Are free inhabitants a real thing in the United States? Do they have any legitimate legal claims?" -
The first question (above) needs clarification. Firstly what "United States"? Judicially there are at least three and legally possibly a few more.
The second question appears to relate to " free inhabitants", however if I were answering a lawful presentment addressed to me personally I would not make any assumptions and instead ask for clarification and identify who/what "they" are.
In the answer by "Martin Ware" (the 14th down the list where the two questions were posed) see:
"The organic laws found in the United States Code and the Statutes at Large ...." "The organic laws" refers to the four Organic Laws of "The United States of America". Three were mentioned among the "31 Answers" (as of this posting). The one Organic Law not mentioned can be pivotal in the formation of a more perfect perspective regarding the case in point. The Organic Law that is essentially missing is the "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government". How can this lesser known Law be "pivotal" for forming "a more perfect perspective"? It is pivotal because it is an Organic Law that establishes governmental jurisdiction as proprietarily based. What that means is that Lawful governmental jurisdiction is limited to the territory and other property owned by government. The teritorial limits (i.e. ten square miles for Washington DC) are the limits of where government can Lawfull exercise its rule. However people (and fictitious or artificial entities represented by people) can voluntarily enter governmental jurisdiction and once they do become subject to the jurisdiction as if they were naturally within the proprietary-based jurisdiction.
All four Organic Laws can be found in front of the United States Code and ion the Statutes At Large and may be the only Laws of "The United States of America" that have been published twice! None of these laws were ver repealed. The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government" and the Constitution of September 17, 1787 all remain valid. The claim that the Constitution of September 17, 1787 replaced The Articles of Confederation is without any Lawful basis because in order for the "Articles" to have been replace that would have to be repealed by the thirteen original states and that has never ever occurred.
To understand the "Constitution" you have to see it in the proper four-fold/four pillar perspective and that requires under-standing the other three preceding Organic Laws "standing" next to the fourth one. Otherwise you are looking at something out of context missing components like its pre-laid foundation! When perspective concerns jurisdiction the missing components can be extremely detrimental to your life, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness! My advice is don't "leave home" without a fully-"loaded" four-fold perspective of all four Organic Laws intact or you'll be at risk to being presumed to be "government property" in the form of a 14th amendment U.S. citizen.
 Article: http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/09/escaping-traps-of-corporate-impostor.html?showComment=1505652781183#c6100725381480696623
Article source: "Escaping the Traps of Corporate Impostor Government":
 pages 41 and 42 of “American Organic Law” - Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry,
 Approximate 19' into: "Reclaiming America & Restoring 'De Jure' Government":
Spirit of America, legal fiction, driver, Organic Laws, Declaration of Independence, Unalienable Rights, natural-born Rights, expatriation, The Articles of Confederation, free inhabitant, free citizens, several States, 14th amendment, Institutionalized Crime, Right to Travel, color of law
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!Print this page
Email this page