As people, we are sovereign above government. Each of the member nations of these united states of America agreed to a republican form of government to join the union. As I comprehend it, a republican form of government protects the natural rights of the individual. As sovereigns, we get to choose whether or not a statute passed by the legislative branches of a republican government will have legal force of authority over us as individuals. This is contrary to a democracy wherein the majority can strip away rights of the minority. Evidence that the corporations are operating outside of our original jurisdiction is the common claim by our politicians that we are a democracy. What they do not reveal to the public is the democratic corporation has no legal force of authority over people.
This combined with the case of Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 904 904 (1824) in which the court opined,
“As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation than are expressly given by the incorporating act. ….
The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty so far as respects the transactions of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter. “
This was affirmed again in the case of David Snavely of Huntsville, Alabama when he challenged the City of Huntsville and Alabama as not having authority to make him register his vehicle or get a drivers license. (I have not been able to locate the case since I first read it.) His case went to the Alabama state Supreme Court and the court agreed with him. One of his two arguments was the above referenced case.
So, does it not stand to reason then that any law passed by the corporation would have no legal force of authority over people? If we choose whether or not the original jurisdiction government's law will impact us, then it seems obvious the corporation's law would have no authority over people either.
The states use these corporations to permit them to fool people into believing they have authority they do not have. State income taxes and property taxes are not permissible under natural law. Besides securing our ownership rights to our land, isn't one of the reasons for getting a land patent the elimination of a tax the government, let alone the corporation, does not have a right to?
This is supported in case law when the income tax was challenged in the 1800's with BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
“It has been well said that the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.”
This upheld the notion that government does not have a right to tax our incomes, earnings, wages or whatever we are paid in exchange for our labors. This case occurred after the incorporation of the federal government in 1871.
As I comprehend it, a so called “law” passed by a subservient government, let alone a corporation, has no legal force of authority over human beings, as in we the people. So my question here would be, what law specifically is being referred to here?
Just for example, although Title 15 of the United States code is not law, it does not affect human beings within the states. (I did not use Title 26, the income tax code, as an example, because it is not law. I stopped participating in this (not) law back in 1996.) I know that studying the law first hand gives people the knowledge of the law, but there would be no need to study law that does not apply to us. Since, I know that title 26 does not affect me, I do not care what is in it, nor would I care about any other law passed by a government agency that has no legal force of authority over me.
But before we continue, should we know what a "code" is? After all, the so called "laws" passed by government are referred to by said government as codes; United States Codes, revised codes. So why don't they refer to them as laws rather than codes? Well, because the codes are not, in fact, laws. Just look at the definition of the word "code".
Code – noun, a system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols substituted for other words, letters, etc., especially for the purposes of secrecy.
Verb - convert (the words of a message) into a particular code in order to convey a secret meaning.
As we can see by the definition, there are secret meanings to the codes. What they do is change the meanings of particular words to mean something different than what rational people would believe them to mean.
The same case referenced above even states in the first concurrence by Field, J.,
“No one of the judges who then disagreed with the majority of the court denied that the states possessed the fullest power ever claimed by the most earnest advocate of their reserved rights, to prescribe regulations affecting the health, the good order, the morals, the peace, and the safety of society within their respective limits. When such regulations do not conflict with any constitutional inhibition or natural right, their validity cannot be successfully controverted.” (Emphasis added)
Since, any statutory law passed by any legislative body would be to force an action or force the cessation of an action, would this then not mean that all statutory laws in regards to people then be in conflict with said people's natural rights?
Some use the argument that by getting a driver's license we contract with the state. However, does not the “law” provide that contracts have to be entered into knowingly and voluntarily?
Most people do not know they are entering into any such contract and believe the “government” when the “government” tells them they are required to get one. So if there is such a contract, would not that contract be void for several reason? Those reasons being, fraud, because the corporation making the claim did so falsely; coercion, because the corporation was passing itself off as the authority and threatens punishment for failure to comply with it's “laws”. Does not also the sovereign get to choose which laws he will abide even if their is a contract since there is no higher authority than a sovereign?
It seems to me then that we cannot be required to obtain a license from the state. As a matter of fact, judges in the decisions delivered for BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884) 111 U.S. 746 refers to a license and incorporating charter as a “contract”. So once again, wouldn't one be lead to believe since entering into a contract requires both parties to said contract to be doing so knowingly and voluntarily. Would not then getting a license or forming a state sanctioned corporation also be a voluntary act not required for one to open a business?