An Important Supreme Court Case

Government did not create OR give me my rights, therefore they cannot lawfully deprive me of my rights without due process of law and in accordance with the constitution, they can ONLY respect my rights OR violate them. And violating my rights IS a crime. And remember, no one is above the law. Sovereigns are not above the law, but we are above corrupt government, and we are holding our public servants accountable for their crimes against the people.

Maybe that's why the government is calling us terrorists, because we are terrifying them with the truth that law, order and justice may not be in American courts today instead but resides with American sovereigns in common law jurisdiction which is the supreme law of the land.

I am aware that most people do not understand sovereignty, and because the federal government is attempting to deceptively label law abiding American sovereigns as criminal un-patriotic terrorists, I will do my best to present the truth and this US Supreme Court ruling is a prime example of our right to be free of corporate tyranny.




Below is an excerpt from Frederick Mann's book and can read in it's entire form at this link : http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/tl04.htm

HOW TO FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE

© Copyright 1993 by Frederick Mann, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 

 

An Important Supreme Court Case
The sovereign individual paradigm is reflected by the following U.S. Supreme Court case:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights." It does not say, "Sit on his rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your rights, demand them, "stand upon" them.  Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way."  Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone or steal from someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.  Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the sovereign individual. The sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.  Then it says, "His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent rights. The U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us rights. We have fundamental rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our rights. And Amendment IX states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the state. Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your rights? No! Your rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial by jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact. Then the case says, "Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are some of the rights of a sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.  Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." The sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes.  If you discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask the attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, it is unlikely that there will be a meaningful response. A friend of mine has researched Hale v. Henkel. He reported:

"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of at least 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled. How does that compare with the other Supreme Court cases? Although a complete study has not been made, initial observations indicate that no other case surpasses Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited."

(As you may realize, it makes no difference to who you actually are even if this case was "overturned." The point is: Are you going to let someone else tell you who you are, or are you going to find out for yourself?)