The Greatest Threat to the Republic is a Judge

So many Americans today are concerned about terrorist and ISIS they fail to notice the greatest threat to American freedom. As with any country, the greatest threat to a nation is not from without but from within. Enemies within look like us, talk like us and walk like us, but they are far from actually being like us.

The United States of America was establish as a republic with member nation providing evidence of their republican form of government prior to being permitted into the union. Under a republican form of government, the consent of the governed is a requirement. This is in contrast to a democracy wherein the consent is only required of the majority. Consent from the minority is not required.

There are a couple of ways that government primarily uses to get the consent of the people.

The first way that governments succeeded in getting the people's consent and the reason government took over education of our children was to get people to label themselves US Citizens - A US citizen is defined in the 14th amendment as someone "born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The reason for he 2nd requirement is people in these united states are sovereign. We inherited the rights and prerogative of the king before us.

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.

Another way that government gets the people's jurisdiction is arraignment. If for example someone is arrested for driving under the influence, he will be taken in front of a judge who will state something like, "You are hereby being charged for violating code sus and such. How do you plead? Guilty, not guilty or no contest?" But there are more choices than the three provided by the judge. Here is why.

We are guaranteed common law by the Constitution for the United States of America. We are also guaranteed at Article VI, section 4 of the Constitution a republican form of government. This means that government must obtain our consent for everything that it would have us do and statutes are not law.

WHEREAS A 'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, a concurrent or 'joint resolution' of legislature is not "Law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); lacking Due process in that they are void for ambiguity in their failure to specify their applicability to 'natural persons,' depriving the same of fair notice, identifying only corporate persons rather, officers, agents, representatives, subdivisions, and property of government. “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261)

Due process of law is process according to the law of the land .... . . . Due process of law in the latter [the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution) refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law .... Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111,292,28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).]

Statutes only apply to persons, not people. Yes, there is a difference.

"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." ( Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice 612 F. 2d 417, 425 (1979)).

The "word ‘person’ as used and employed in most statutory language is ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign, and that for one as such to be bound by statute, they must be 'specifically' named." ( Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653 (1979); Will v. Michigan state Police 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed.2nd 45 (1989); U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530);

And just exactly who is the sovereign????

In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. (emphasis added)

The people, being sovereign, are not subject to law.

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.

So how does all of this lead to treason? Well, when the judge ask you how you plead, guilty not guilty, or no contest, what he is doing is attempting to get you to consent to leave the common law and be held accountable to the code. If you do not consent to leave the common law, all you have to do is do not enter a plea. You can say, "I object to the code. I object to the jurisdiction of this inferior court. An inferior court is any court that uses statutes.

So this is where the judge has a choice to be honorable or dishonorable. The judge may not proceed against you without your individual consent. Most judges are so bent on making it look like they got your consent that they will lie to make a jury believe they got it. Here is their problem. If you do not enter a plea and the judge enter one "for you" he has at that moment committed perjury. That is the least of his problems.

The judge also violated 18 USC 241, Conspiracy against you rights. This is a crime punishable up to 10 years in prison, if you do not get killed due to the crime. If yo are killed, it becomes a capital offense. He is also guilty of depriving you of your rights under color of law a violation of 18 USC 242. This has the same penalties as 241. He has also obstructed justice and committed seditious contempt of Constitution.

But the most egregious crime he has committed is treason. He is required by the Constitution to obtain your individual consent. That is what a republic is; consent of teh governed. This is a capital offense. Judges have been getting away with these crimes for decades. That is about to come to an end. The people have risen.

Defend Freedom™