The U S Constitution

[targa2]

It seems to me that the arguement most often relied upon in any discussion of sovereignty hinges on this passage from the U.S. Constitution.
Article 1 Sec 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

I have taken the liberty of bolding the print on this part of the passage to point out that within the framework of this most deliberated section there is a simple but powerful statement........ That no State shall pass a law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.  Since our relationship to the government as Citizens is based primarily on Adhesion Contracts it should be obvious that these take priority over any law including the protections of other sections of this Constitution.

Sorry folks, I am all for fixing this messed up system but not by using a flawed legal argument.

Anther famous criticism that is levelled by those who understand the contractual nature of our relationship to government is the argument that " the contract is not valid because federal Reserve notes are worthless debt instuments so they constitute an invalid CONSIDERATION which voids the contact with government due to lack of consideration or fraud".

WELL........ .......... they may be worthless debt instuments, that I cannot argue, but the Fed Res note is NOT the consideration in this Adhesion Contract with government.  The USE  of the Federal Reserve notes, the USE of banking system, and the ability to have a redress of greivences through the court system for anyone operating in these instruments Do constitute Lawful Consideration, as they are of great benefit to the user.  Try living without them starting tommorrow and tell me at the end of a month how useful they are.

Sorry folks, but this law thing goes a lot deeper than meets the eye.

P S.... I am not buying this "Common Law Court " nonsense that is being passed off as fact by 1215.org either.

You cannot be charged in one juridiction and defend yourself in another jurisdiction. Legal Maxim....  " He who derives the benefit ought to also bear the burden "

[ldrancer]

i dont understand their ideal of their site, and you know i haven't looked at it.  and i don't want to, but that video where that guy gets his case thrown out by taking over the court when the judge walked out and since we own the government, calling himself the owner, and since he was the only one who had business and based on their actions, the judge abandoned the court and he had it thrown out on base of cause and prejudice.  if its anything like that, then i disagree with you.  becaesu that's exactly how it is, i think.  i know.  if your talking about something else, i didn't even get that site, im not sure.

[targa2]

No, that wasn't the issue I was talking about but now that you bring it up I will say this.  Nobody , but nobody wishes that the system worked the way these people claim it does more than I do.  First of all, do you really think the judge bowed to that guy or is it just possible that bowing to the courtroom is standard procedure for a judge when he is leaving the room.  Second of all, I think that the court system is tired of dealing with people wasting their time.  They will simply try the case " in absentia " and save time arguing with a belligerent defendant.  Yes they can do that you know.  Once they have given the party in question a chance to appear and make a defence they can do that.  Thirdly, is this what we all want......to spend 5- 10 years learning law to beat a $110 traffic ticket. I make $50 an hour at work so my time spent pouring over a bunch of nonsense about nom de guerre strawman theories would be far better spent making another $50 in crappy paper debt to pay my fictitious bills. I see some minor wins on traffic violations, a few default judgements but nothing major.  Show me a major case like a tax case or something that has some teeth and I will believe this garbage is law.  
Just because someone says " hey, I've been at this for 4 years and no-one has come after me yet" doesn't mean they won't.  I had Canada Rev Agency at my door with a cop ready to arrest me so theres not much you can tell me that I will believe.  It took 6 years for them to get to that point so when someone says they are winning their case I'll just wait for a few years to see if they are singing the same tune.

Honestly....how many of you have actually tried this patridiot legal crap and then let enough time pass for the system to catch up to you
 Anyone ??