Listen to the audio: http: http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/audios.html Look for The Red Amendment and pick your format.
Read the documentation: http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/us_citizen_examined.pdf
You have contracts with the corporate United States de facto government which you were tricked into participating in. You have no freedoms under their judicial system, because you have unwittingly traded them for privileges and benefits which are man made. Did you ever sign under the penalties of perjury? Do you have a birth certificate? Did you ever read it? Do you have a drivers license? Did you trade your right to travel in for a privilege of driving?
How was this done?
It's all fraud. Did they have your permission? Well yes and no. On paper maybe, but we have all been told we have a Constitution that is supposed to guarantee our God given rights. That's what they tell you. That is a lie in practice. That is why you can't get justice in any court in the land. That is why they tell you that you have no standing.
The question you have to answer for yourself is this: Did you VOLUNTEER to give up your rights in favor of privileges and benefits, and what are you going to do about it?
If we once realize the fraud, what can we do to correct and remedy the problem? After 140 years of the fraud, how can it be corrected and fixed?
Are we going to continue to participate and associate with "criminals and insurgents" that have subverted and continue to subvert the Supreme Law of our land? We all have some decisions to make soon.
At what point does the "Rule of Law" become a liability because of the subversion of the law itself?
When these laws increase at the rate of 15,000 new "laws" per year are they really binding in God's eyes?
When does it become manditory to obey God's laws rather than human law that has been subverted by criminals in government and the judicial system? At what point does the old addage of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" become evil? How could anyone be required to keep up with all the so called "laws" (codes and statutes) since the beginning, let alone the 15,000 new codes and statutes put on the books each and every year just in this country? How, in God's Holy Name, can perfectly law abiding people be made into "criminals" at the stroke of a pen? The fact is they can't, and God knows it.
In the end there will be JUSTICE delivered by the perfect Judge, Jesus Christ, and all the corruption will be ended. So pick a side and live accordingly. When judges want you to worship them, refuse, or take a chance on offending the real and supreme judge!
For some solutions: http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/ Watch the videos!
From the Information furnished with the above video:
Prior to the alleged ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no legal definition of a "citizen of the United States", as everyone had primary citizenship in one of the several states. The Constitution referred to the sovereign state citizen, and no one else. Those who went to Washington, D.C. or outside the several states were commonly called "citizens of the United States." In the Constitution for the United States, the term was used to identify state citizens who were eligible under the suffrage laws to hold office, and they were required under the Constitution to have primary allegiance to one of the several states.
Since that term was not specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution, Congress in 1868 took advantage of this term and utilized it in the so-called 14th Amendment to describe a NEW type of "citizen" whose primary allegiance was to the federal government, i.e. Washington, D.C. and not to one of the several states of the union. Thus, using the term as used in the U.S. Constitution to mislead and confuse the people as to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution.
Many people have mistaken the citizen as denominated in the 14th Amendment to mean the same one in the original constitution, this is in error. The "citizen of the united states" as used in the constitution is not the same as the citizen of the United States used after the 14th Amendment. So all the elected officials are NOT sitting in the office constitutionally, they are merely impostors created by the 14th Amendment. The current President Clinton, is a U.S. citizen, and therefore not the "citizen of the united states" defined in the Constitution for the United States, neither the federal senators nor any congressmen are seated constitutionally. These facts being true, then all the federal laws are invalid for want of constitutionality.
The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state. United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.
We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
In other words, you do not have to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a state citizen. This was held to be true by the Maryland Supreme Court in 1966 wherein the state:
Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state. Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)
The federal government was never given any authority to encroach upon the private affairs of the citizens in the several states of the union, unless they were involved in import or export activity, neither were they given authority to reach a citizen of Germany living in Germany. In fact, the states could refuse to enforce any act of congress, that they felt was outside the intent of the granting of limited powers to the federal government. This is called interposition or nullification. Several state supreme courts have in the past refused to uphold federal laws within their states.
LEGAL NOTICE: The Authors specifically invoke the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press, without prejudice, on this website. The information posted on this website is published for informational purposes only under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America. Images, text and logic are copyright protected. ALL rights are explicitly reserved without prejudice, and no part of this website may be reproduced unless by written consent. You hereby have written consent to post any individual post from this website containing this copyright to any other blog or email only if you post the whole and unaltered article including this copyright, and give proper credit to the author, and a link back to this blog at http://www.paulstramer.net/. This applies only to articles written by Paul Stramer. ©2005-2009 by Montana Business Communications (PDS) All rights remain in force. Removing this notice forfeits all rights to recourse. Copyright strictly enforced © The videos are third party and not covered by this legal notice.