The Ficticious Legal Entity Called a Person

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
B.W. Cornwell B.W. Cornwell's picture
The Ficticious Legal Entity Called a Person

I found the document you'll see attached below back about 2005 and it has all the info about who we are as "persons" in the eyes of the thousands of government agencies. It gets into the strawman/fictitious entities and supplies the solution (of that time period) to send an Affidavit to those in government letting them know you're a sovereign. Now, keep in mind that this was written just a short time ago and shows what the "movement" was in a few patriot circles. While I don't find fault in the information of how the government agencies look at PERSONS, I do find fault in how they were going about solving the dilemma. I wrote my answer with my own questions on the bottom of the attached document because the entire document I feel is too long to post in this thread. But it is acknowledging that what was thought as a solution 10 years ago has grown. The solution for me anyhow. Ten years ago I was thinking the only solution really was to have an all out war with the government. Read the document to get what I'm talking about. Thank you.

I will print one segment from the document out in the open here because I like it that much:


    “Constitution”: The document supposedly setting forth the foundations of a “country” and “its” “government,” has no inherent authority or obligation. A “constitution” has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between two or more individuals, and then it is limited only to those individuals who have specifically entered into it. At most, such a document could be a contract between the existing people at the time of its creation, but no-one has the right, authority, or power to bind their posterity. I have not knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally entered into any such “constitution” contract to oblige myself thereby, therefore such a document is inapplicable to me, and anyone claiming to derive their “authority” from such a document has no “jurisdiction” over me.

    Use of semantics: There are some immature people with mental imbalances, such as the craving to dominate other people, who masquerade as “government,” and call the noises and scribbles that emanate from their mouths and pens “the law” which “must be obeyed.” Just because they alter definitions of words in their “law” books to their supposed advantage, doesn’t mean I accept those definitions. The fact that they define the words “person,” “address,” “mail,” “resident,” “motor vehicle,” “driving,” “passenger,” “employee,” “income,” and many others, in ways different from the common usage, so as to be associated with a subject or slave status, means nothing in real life. Because the “courts” have become entangled in the game of semantics, be it known to all “courts” and all parties, that if I have ever signed any document or spoken any words on record, using words defined by twists in any “law” books different from the common usage, there can be no effect whatsoever on my sovereign status in society thereby, nor can there be created any “obligation” to perform in any manner, by the mere use of such words. Where the definition in the common dictionary differs from the definition in the “law” dictionary, it is the definition in the common dictionary that prevails, because it is more trustworthy.

Such compelled and supposed “benefits” include, but are not limited to, the aforementioned typical examples. My use of such alleged “benefits” is under duress only, and is with full reservation of all my natural inherent rights. I have waived none of my intrinsic rights and freedoms by my use thereof. Furthermore, my use of such compelled “benefits” may be temporary, until alternatives become available, practical, and widely recognized.

AmericanQueen AmericanQueen's picture
It's all about knowing how to

It's all about knowing how to contract and using a "restricted signature." Crossing out all we disagree with on the form. Most people are unaware of how to do so or don't know it's allowed. It's about separating our "monopoly game piece", aka, our strawman, from us, the living man or woman.

By: Last, First Middle, general executor, all rights reserved, non-assumpsit

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince people they've been fooled." ~ Mark Twain

Log in or register to post comments