Constitutional Emergency

Usually weekly I receive e-mails from a friend, which are forwarded to me from a man by the name of Michael Gaddy. I have been receiving these messages for several years. I am very impressed with this man's knowledge of American History. He has apparently spent many hours of research. He calls his work the "Rebel Rant". This one is the first of a series that he will be sending. I believe all who have an interest in the "true" history of America will enjoy this. Everyone please feel free to add your own knowledge and research as this unfolds.


Views: 363

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Authors note: This will be a multi-part presentation in response to several requests for more information on the founding era of our country, which in many cases is contrary to what we were all taught in history and government/civics classes. It is also beneficial to understand the motives of many at the very beginning of our country. Such motives will provide insight into what our government has morphed into during its existence.

Among us in our country today are those who are strong advocates of an omnipotent, centralized government whose every law must be obeyed and every wish granted without question or discussion, much less dissent. What are the origins of those beliefs? Could it be a desire for a king as one sees in the Scriptures (I Samuel Chapter 8) when the Israelites asked Samuel to “make us a king to judge us like all the nations?” (v 5 SKJV) Was this the first recorded act of people rejecting Natural Law in favor of the laws of man (a king)?

Of particular interest is the use of the word “nations” in the above passage. The definition of a nation is an “aggregate” of people united in one form or another. Today, this is most often interpreted as an aggregate of people united under one leader or form of government that cannot be divided. “I pledge allegiance to the flag…one nation…indivisible.” Was a nation the end results of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or did the majority of our founders choose to implement a different form of government? To best understand this, one must comprehend what brought those delegates to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.

To better grasp the events of the convention of 1787 we must be aware of the motives of those who pushed politically for that convention and the type of government they would present to the other delegates. A great place for examining these motives can be found in what was called the “Proceedings of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government” held on the 11thof September in 1786 in Annapolis, Maryland.


Several among those known as our “founders” were troubled early on about the limitations that had been placed on the powers of government by the Articles of Confederation which had been ratified in 1781. Troubling to anyone whose goal was a nationalist form of government as opposed to a federal one was Article 2.

 “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” (Emphasis added. This is a critical phrase of understanding concerning a truly Republican form of government)

Even more troubling to those desiring a more centralized, powerful government was the following phrase of Article XIII.

“…nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” (This is exactly what the proponents of a national form of government sought to avoid.)

Those who sought to use the government to exercise power and dominion over the people realized that the citizens of the 13 colonies held wide and varying beliefs on the role of government in their lives and obtaining the affirmation of all 13 in the pursuit of national government would be impossible. The first to strike upon a scheme for alteration of the Articles and the very limited government they formed was Alexander Hamilton. In 1782, the New York Assembly, at the urging of Hamilton, asked the Congress to call for a convention of the states to revise the Articles. In 1785 the Massachusetts Legislature seconded the request to Congress. Congress considered the request but could not find a consensus for such an assembly in the other states.

James Madison then moved through the Virginia Assembly in January of 1786 for a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland in September to discuss “commercial problems” alleged to be in the Articles.

Only 12 delegates from 5 states met in Annapolis to discuss these commercial issues. Obviously the assemblies of the other 8 states saw no compelling reason to attend this convention nor were they overly concerned about “defects of the Federal Government.” Illustrative was the fact that even though the convention was held in Annapolis, Maryland, no delegates from Maryland was in attendance.

I believe to understand the importance of who these delegates were and what their individual motives were is critical to understanding this important but overlooked part of our country’s history.

What should be most revealing is the fact John Dickinson of Delaware was unanimously elected Chairman of the proceedings. Why is this important you ask? Well, Dickinson steadfastly opposed American Independence from the beginning and refused to vote on or sign the Declaration of Independence. This alone should cause one to question his motives concerning alteration of the Articles of Confederation.

Interesting also is the fact the other 11 delegates to the Annapolis Convention were politicians and/or lawyers. Possibly the only attendee who believed in a limited form of government was St. George Tucker from Virginia. It should be noted that Alexander Hamilton, one of the delegates from New York, had founded the Bank of New York in 1784 which was referred to as a “global financial services” company.

Ironically, Hamilton in September of 1789, acting as our first Secretary of the Treasury, would initiate a loan from the bank he helped found to the new United States Government. Surely we can all agree on how helpful and supportive global financial interests have been toward limited republican government over the course of our country’s history.

But, James Madison, the Father of our Constitution was instrumental in promoting the Annapolis Convention and was in fact a delegate you exclaim! True. But, I do believe Madison was a nationalist and fostered an agenda contrary to a federal/republican form of government. This became most apparent with his authoring of the Virginia Plan in April of 1787, a couple of months before the convention. A plan in which Madison believed the “states should be reduced to corporations.” An idea later supported by both Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler.

The background and agendas of some of the other delegates to the Annapolis Convention deserve some investigation. One such delegate was Tench Coxe from Pennsylvania. After the British Army occupied Philadelphia during the Revolution, Coxe continued to carry on a thriving business with both Loyalists and the British Army. When the Patriots took over Philadelphia, Coxe left only to return when the British Army retook Philadelphia under British General Howe in 1777. Several Patriots accused Coxe of having “British sympathies” and he was also accused of briefly serving in the British Army.

Important was the fact delegates from only 5 states, certainly not a majority, fully admitted in their report to exceeding the “strict bounds of their appointment(s)” as delegates to the Annapolis Convention. It is important to note this fact for it will continue.

“If in expressing this wish, or in intimating any other sentiment, your Commissioners should seem to exceed the strict bounds of their appointment, they entertain a full confidence, that a conduct, dictated by an anxiety for the welfare, of the United States, will not fail to receive an indulgent construction.

Again, it is important to note that “the anxiety for the welfare of the United States” was never shown to be present in a majority of the states, indicated by the lack of attendance at this convention, but was present only in this select few whose motives would, because of their past actions, be at best, suspect.

At the convention in Annapolis, which led directly to the call for delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 we have the following:

1.      A chairman (Dickinson) elected unanimously who had refused to sign the Declaration of Independence and had opposed American independence and separation from the Crown.

2.      An influential member of the delegation (Hamilton) who had been the first to call for this convention and had recently formed a bank with at the time professed global financial interests. Were those interests connected to the Bank of England perchance and is it simply coincidence Hamilton would become our first Secretary of the Treasury and would then call for a United States Bank which Thomas Jefferson called “unconstitutional?”

3.      Another member of this delegation (Coxe) was known to give aid and comfort to the British during the revolution while profiting from the act and is alleged to have possibly served briefly in the military of the British.

4.      Then of course there was James Madison who, months before the Convention of 1787 wrote a new plan for government that was nationalist and not federal and who throughout his political career would change his political views to comport with the exigencies of the moment. Ample evidence of this fact can be found in his vacillations concerning States Rights.

Conspicuously absent from this convention was any support or mention of the motives and principles of the Articles of Confederation which led to our country’s independence or the values of Liberty expressed by patriots such as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. Would it be of interest to know why these two patriots were not selected as delegates?

There can be little doubt that the Annapolis Convention led to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and a departure from several key principles of the Articles of Confederation; arguably, some good---some bad.

Should we the people be alarmed that the proponents and leaders of the Annapolis Convention were perhaps still loyal to England and perhaps even the Bank of England and desirous of either a return to a monarchy in which they would be the leaders, or at the very least a government of a national character not at all unlike the despotic government we have today?

There are no doubt those delegates from the Annapolis Convention sought to bring about change outside of the dictates of the Articles of Confederation (Art. 13) and the Congress of the United States. Why? I believe the answer to that question will be revealed as we continue with our study of the founding era of America.

In Liberty



The fact that the United States government IS a corporation, as far as I can tell, this relinquishes their sovereignty and they are no different than walmart. In other words, in order for them to have any authority over anyone, there MUST be a lawful contract willingly and knowingly signed by both parties. This is why they had to have the 14th Amendment. It makes everyone a "citizen" of this Federal Corporation known as the United States and you are therefore "subject" to their jurisdiction. This why I say that you do not want to be a U.S. citizen or a 14th Amendment citizen.

Clearfield Doctrine

"Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation,
and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where
private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and
securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit,
such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities
entirely separate from government." -

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942) 
What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private 
commercial paper is used by corporate government, then 
Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no 
different than a mere private corporation.

As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and
laws that govern private corporations which means that if they
intend to compel an individual to some specific performance
based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then
the government, like any private corporation, must be the holder-
in-due-course of a contract or other commercial agreement
between it and the one upon whom demands for specific
performance are made.

And further, the government must be willing to enter the contract
or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to
the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.

This case is very important because it is a 1942 case after the
Erie RR v. Tomkins 304 U.S. 64, (1938) case in which the
Legislatures and Judiciary changed from legislating under
"Public Law", which was in consonance with the CONstitution,
to legislating under "Public Policy" according to the wishes
of the "Creditors of the US Corporation".

Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump Explains
14th Amendment Citizenship

The following is a reprint from the Free Enterprise Society's newsletter, May 1989. It is authored by former Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump:
"As my interest in constitutional law has expanded over the past years and the word of my interest spread, I have happily become the recipient of Patriot papers, circulars and letters from all over this great land.
Many folks involved in the research and use of the principles involved in our "Republican" form of government have become personal friends. These friendships have enabled a great deal of activity, from diverse sources, to develop together for comparison and evaluation.
I have, from time to time, endeavored to pass information, on a limited basis, from one source to another for enlightenment of individuals on general issues.
This time, however, it would appear that the emerging principles are so fundamental to our form of government, and of such magnitude as to encompass every man, woman and child in our united Republics, that one wonders how they could have ever become obscured.
The principles to which I refer are those heralded in the Preamble of the Constitution, which being: "We, the People...." and continues " the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity." These words, without question, were used to represent the interests of the signers of the Constitutional contract. That is to say, "The Founding Fathers and their Posterity."
When one reflects on this meaning of "We the People" it would seem to mean that the Preamble People were a class of people who, with the aid of God, originally secured their Liberty with the protections they constructed into the Organic Constitution and the first ten Amendments thereto. This, being the case, tends to bring the import of the 14th Amendment into focus.
The 13th and 14th Amendments, as we have been taught, were fashioned to give freedom to slaves and to secure for them privileges of citizenship.
Our Educators, however, neglected to explain that the 14th Amendment creation was that of a new "class" of citizenship. It becomes clear when one studies the wording of the Organic Constitution, that the original people cited in the "Preamble" could not lose the "Blessings" secured thereby as long as the Constitution was intact, because our Constitution is perpetual.
The 14th Amendment, then had to create another "position" for those persons for whom it was created. Scrutiny of the 14th Amendment reveals that persons encompassed thereby were "subject" to jurisdiction thereof and may not "question" the validity of the public debt.
Big "C" -- Little "c"

When this Nation was founded each of the individual States of this union had their own Citizens (spelled with a capital "C"). Today, we have a second class of citizen (note the small "c"), the 14th Amendment citizen.
In law, every letter in a word is important. A word capitalized may mean one specific thing, while the same word without capitalization may mean something entirely different. In the case of Citizenship (or citizenship), this is more certainly true.
There is a clear distinction between national and State citizenship, U.S. citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and Immunities of the Citizen of the State. K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, affirmed 49 S Ct 47, 278 US 123.
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, agrees with the distinction between these different classes of (C)itizenship:
There are two Privileges and Immunities Clauses in the federal Constitution and Amendments, the first being found in Art. IV, and the second in the 14th Amendment. Section 1, second sentence, clause 1. The provision in Art. IV states that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, while the 14th Amendment provides that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Note the lack of capitalization in the wording used in the 14th Amendment, this specifically means that the words "citizens, privileges, immunities" are not the same as in Article IV.
The State of California was admitted into the Union of the United States in 1849; 9 Statutes at Large 452. It was admitted on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever.
The State of California was required to have its own Citizens, who were first State Citizens, then as a consequence of State Citizenship were American Citizens, known as Citizens of the United States. There was no specific class as this, but for traveling and protection by the United States government while out of the country, they were generally called Citizens of the United States.
The Constitution for the United States of America (1787) used the term "Citizen of the United States" in Article I, Section 2, (capital "C"), and numerous other sections. This referred to the Sovereign Political Body of State Citizens, this Citizen is entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States under Article IV.
Congress utilized the same term "citizen of the United States" qualifying it with a small "c" to distinguish "federal citizen" in the so-called 14th Amendment. These "citizens" have only statutory rights granted by Congress.
Thus, Congress and most of the Judiciary, without distinction being properly brought forth have made rulings based upon the federal "citizens" who are resident in a State, not State Citizens domiciled within their own State.
The statement by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Stanford, 19 How. 393, 422, in defining the term "persons" the Judge stated:
...persons who are not recognized as Citizens." See also American and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, which also distinguishes "persons" and "Citizens." These were the persons that were the object of the 14th Amendment, to give to this class of native born "persons" who were "resident" in the union of the United States citizenship, and authority to place other than the white race within the special category of "citizen of the United States."
To overcome the statement in Dred Scott, supra, that only white people were Citizens, and all other persons were only "residents" without citizenship of the United States, Congress then passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat 27.
The Act of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14 U.S. Stats. At Large, pg. 27, which was the forerunner of the 14th Amendment, amply shows the intent of Congress:
All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens of every race and color... shall have the same right in every state and territory of the United States... to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,...
(Again, note the lack of capitalization)
This was the intent of Congress; not to infringe upon the Constitution or the state of the de jure Citizens of the several states. It was never the intent of the 14th Amendment to subvert the States' authority or that of the Constitution as it relates to the status of the de jure State Citizens. People v. Washington, 36 C 658, 661 (1869) over ruled on other grounds; French v. Barber, 181 US 324; MacKenzie v. Hare, 60 L Ed 297
At this point, I anticipate a lot of folks reading this article are going into shock as they grab for the Constitution to check out the phrase and "question" of the validity of the public debt. Let me help you by reference to section 4 of the 14th Amendment and caution you to hold onto your chair.
It would seen then, from the foregoing, that there are two "classes" of citizens in this country:
1. Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized within the meaning of the Organic Constitution and inhabiting one of the several Republics of the United States who enjoy full citizenship of the Organic Constitution as Citizens of the Republic which they inhabit.

2. Citizen "subject": persons enfranchised by the 14th Amendment who are born or naturalized in the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are residing therein as a United States citizen and are enjoying the privileges and immunities of "limited" citizenship.

It is not my intention, in this article, to become technically involved in citations for the information introduced here, but only to outline an overview for those folks who claim "Constitutional Rights" and then wonder why the legislatures, courts and police don't respond in "kind" to these claims.

When one separates the classes among their appropriate dividing lines, it appears that:
1. Preamble Citizens:
a. Have direct personal access to a God inspired, original Constitution and it's restraints on government for the protection of life, liberty and property.

b. Have direct personal access to the Article III courts known as "justice courts" which deal with law.
2. Citizen "subjects":
a. Have representative access to the first eight amendments as purviewed by the 14th Amendment.

b. Have representative access to Article 1 courts, provided by legislature, that are known as "legislative courts" which deal with statutes and are served by bar members, or officers of the court, known as lawyers.

My concern here, stems from my observation that folks involved with the preservation of our beloved Constitution are unaware of the "limited" citizenship created by the 14th Amendment. Additionally, these folks don't realize that they are, or have voluntarily become, citizen subjects because of their acceptance of the "benefits" of limited citizenship.
The main "benefit" that I will mention here is Social Security. There are many other "benefits" such as the benefit of "regulation by licensing" that give control of your children to the State by making them "wards of the State" and subject to the "regulation" of the "legislative courts" by statute, etc.
The intention of this article is to point out the apparent difference in the classes of citizenship and the difference in the courts in serving these classes.

I have noticed that, in many publications, and also personal conversations, people convey their feelings of alarm or despair in finding that "the court" or "government" is in violation of the Constitution without realizing that the court they are addressing is a legislative court and does not hear cases based on justice, but rather, cases based only on statute law.
The reality of the following example of statute law is that the statute specifies a speed limit to be held at 30 m.p.h. The only question that can be entertained by the court is that of whether the accused did in fact go faster than the limit. That is a yes or no question. The accused cannot try to tell the court that it was a six lane highway on a clear day with no traffic in sight and that his speed of 60 m.p.h. did not injure anyone. The court is not obligated to hear that argument as it is not a justice court.

The final question then would seem to be "where is the article III "justice" court and who can use it? I am very aware that many of the folks reading this article are not going to be able to use the justice courts, as they have natural or acquired deficiencies that will not allow them Preamble Citizenship, but for the people endowed with the proper qualifications, it appears that the straight line approach of barring jurisdiction of legislative courts (tribunals) through recision of contracts and declaration of Article IV, Section 2 status is essential, as it appears that only Preamble People can exercise the offices as set forth in the Organic Constitution. Additionally, it seems that this same class (Preamble People) is the only class that may claim the protection of the first ten Amendments as written.

As the truth of our personal status, and the responsibilities connected therewith unfolds, it becomes clear that the Article III "justice" court must be accessed individually by the person claiming the right. At present it is being done by common law filing of actions "in law" with the County Recorders who have been found to be "ex officio" clerks of the County courts. The authority for the exercise of the "justice" office is found in the 9th Article of Amendment and I believe all State Constitutions have similar provisions for the Preamble Citizens (also known as de jure Citizens).
I will not go farther with an attempt toward instruction but will leave this in the hands of the many patriots engaged in the research of these developments. My mission in presenting this information in a general sense is to help the unfortunate individuals who repeatedly bash themselves against the rocks of misinformation or ignorance in vain, though laudable, effort to protect our beloved Constitution. I hope I have achieved this end." 
Thomas again, outstanding. We've been having conversations and disscussions on this very subject over at OAS for a while. Yours is one of the best presentations I've heard, thanks again.

Thank you Michael. If enough people are educated in this matter and begin asserting their rights as "Preamble Citizens" aka de jure Citizens, aka state Citizens of the Republic, and removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the Federal Corporate United States, then this could be the answer for restoring our Republic in a peaceful manner. As of now, the status of Preamble Citizen is being honored by the PTB at least in my area. It is my understanding that the powers that be are required to honor this status. As long as that continues, I feel that this will be the answer to restoring America.  

As far as I know at this point, the best way to correct your status officially is by properly filling out the application for a U.S. passport. i know of a couple of others in my area including myself who have done this. I received a message from one them a few days ago and he said that he was doing 70 mph in a 55 zone when he met a city cop, the cop turned around with the lights on and apparently after running his tags the cop turned the lights off and turned off on another road.

I want to be clear though. This new freedom should never be used as an excuse to flaunt the law. If you do something bad they will probably arrest you and charge you, but they will have to try you in an Article III court. Our true freedoms are a gift from God and we should all act as good stewards and set good examples. The best thing about being of a free status is that ...........

You can carry a gun without a license, you can exercise ALL of your Constitutional rights. 

Again, so long as THEY will honor your status you should be in good shape UNLESS you really screw up. Also, I live in Arkansas and cannot say for sure if all jurisdictions will honor it the same, ie New York, Chicago etc. 

If someone wants the info on how to properly fill out the passport application (very important that it is filled out properly) you can provide an email addy or I will try to put the doc in a format so that I can post the file here. 

I think you hit upon a good point and that's that they have to honor your status as a de jour citizen. And I dont think with the current state of our legal system that is going to happen. Try carrying a gun without proper documentation and I guarrentee you you will be arrested in any state in the Nation. The same would hold true to driving without a license because we are allowed free egress over our highways as long as we do so safely, they will ticket you and the judge will care less about your de jour status. Just my opinion, but many have tried these things in the past and have been unsuccessful.

I have had my passport for about 6 months. I am not comfortable wearing a seat belt so I do not wear one. I have paid 4 seat belt tickets over the last 4-5 years. I have passed by several cops since I have had my passport and have not yet been pulled over. That does mean that they are honoring my status, it could be that the cop was not interested in writing a ticket for such a petty offence at that time. 

We, myself and a few others, have been searching for the remedy for a long time. It seems that once a remedy is discovered it works for a while until too many start using it and then THEY stop honoring it. After all of the extensive research myself and others have done, the passport (correction of Citizenship status) must be the silver bullet. I really is as simple as this.......When you remove yourself from their jurisdiction you are no longer "subject" to them, unless you commit a serious offence where others have been harmed in some way or there is property damaged. When you realize that this entire government system is nothing more than a scam and a fraud upon the American people, you realize that unless you are voluntarily a part of their scheme by accepting citizenship in THEIR statutory corporation, then they have no lawful right to compel you perform. We have a choice, and they must honor it. We finally figured out that it is all about your "status". Then we had to figure out how to gain that status. When the passport application is filled out properly you have completely removed yourself from a subject, to a sovereign. As is stated in many supreme court decisions, We the People are sovereign, but because THEY have been masters of deception they have brainwashed everyone into thinking that being a United States citizen is a good thing. If they will not honor this, they will not honor anything. This is the last straw. Give me liberty or give me death. I can no longer tolerate the oppression and deprivation of my rights.

Thomas. Answer me this, since you've gotten your passport what freedoms are you enjoying now that you weren't enjoying before you got your passport. What laws are you not abiding by now that you were abiding by before?? Do you still have a drivers license? Do you still pay taxes, if you are cited with an offense will you go to court? Do you carry firearms without documentation? Just wondering how your life has changed and what freedoms you think you have now that you didn't hsve before. Thanks

Hello Michael. I have never been one who goes looking for trouble or one who becomes arrogant because of I feel that I have accomplished something, but there are times when you know that you must take a stand, but do it with caution. In other words, I do not purposely rattle their cages to see how they will react. 

I do still have a CDL drivers license because most of my working life has involved driving a commercial vehicle and employers will not hire you unless you have a valid license. All license's and permits are nothing more than buying permission from the government to perform an act that is already a Constitutional and God given right. This includes ALL license's. Marriage, business, concealed carry, etc. I let my concealed carry expire about three years ago and have had no problems, but I usually do not carry concealed. I always carry in my automobile but it is out in the open, not concealed. I have been stopped for seat belt with the pistol laying in the seat and so far nothing has been said. Here in Arkansas it is legal to open carry in your vehicle if you are on a journey. A journey has been defined to mean entering another county. 

I have to admit that at first I did not have a lot of faith in the passport, but in the last month or so I have become convinced that it is the remedy. However, I could still be wrong. The change in status accomplishes so many things it is hard to explain it all. 

The Income tax is what supports this evil, corrupt, oppressive, tyrannical system of government, and is a completely unlawful tax on numerous accounts. When it finally dawned on me one day that I was supporting the very entity that was hell bent on depriving me of my birthright, my freedoms, my liberties, my pursuit of happiness, and on and on, I stopped filing both State and Federal Income taxes over 5 years ago. Up until about 4 months ago it has been a constant battle. The State has not bothered me for over a year, but the IRS continued until a few months ago. I have to believe that it was the passport that got the IRS off my back, as only U.S. citizens are required to pay the Income tax. I need to add also that I am considered small potatoes as far as the amount of wages I receive. Nevertheless, If you are not a U.S. citizen, you are not required to pay, besides the fact that the Income tax is unlawful on so many points to begin with. 

To be clear, I am not and cannot make any promises here. I have only had my passport for a short time and like I said earlier, I am not going to go out and see what I can get by with. I have always tried to get along and abide with THEIR laws as much as I am comfortable with. Everyone has to make their own decisions on how far they are willing to go. The steps that I have taken were not done without some fear. Here is what has amazed me. Early on in my quest to be free, there were times when I became afraid because of their terroristic threats. I would hold my Bible and pray for Almighty God to lead me to page # in His Holy Book. Almost every time He would lead me to scripture that said, "Do not fear". I have been blown away several times because the scripture exactly dealt with the problem I was praying about. That was not a coincidence, it was an answered prayer. When it finally dawned on me that no matter what happened, I had nothing to fear, because I was doing nothing wrong. I took a stand, and because it was right, God was with me. It is not wrong to refuse to support an entity so evil and are using MY money that THEY extorted from me by terroristic threats in order to support those who kill babies, kill those in other countries who have not attacked America or our allies, promote the destruction of God and Jesus Christ in our society, etc. I will never pay another cent in income tax to support these hate mongers, come hell or high water.

In closing Michael all I can say is, time will tell. I will keep you posted on anything that I experience personally or others that I know who have obtained the passport. I must say though, for $240.00, it is a small price to pay for the possibility of being free. 


Thomas... Thank you for what I decern is an honest heart felt sincere answer to my questions. In my estimation you don't seem like a lot of the extreme soverignty citizens I have read about. I believe you are following what you believe in your heart from your research is your answer to break free from the corruption within our government and judicial system. I appaud you in your taking a stance for what you believe to be the answer to our nations problems. I believe you are correct in that time will tell if you are correct. The statistics are against you you on the income tax issue, but you are right in that you say you are small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. I think you will see a massive move by the IRS should people start following your lead however. I also think you correctly stated that should people start doing what you are trying to do the powers that be will against those with all the power this corrupt system has at their control. The way this corrupt system is set up it can't have the population moving against their agenda and their corrupt legal system. They will splu be branded, as they have with others as soverignty citizen wackos and punished to the full extent of the law. This tension between de facto and de jour legal system is heating up and I personally believe that those who have corrupted our governmental system will succeed in the end because it is a world wide conspirisy. The control the money, the nations leaders, the legal system, the military, and the population through their corrupt laws. Personally, I don't see a peaceful resolution to the problem, but I respect you for trying to find a peaceful alternative. I am not advocating a violent revolution, I just don't see this playing out peacefully. I hope I'm wrong, I pray I'm wrong, but I'm a realist and I'm fully aware, I believe of what the ruling class has in store for not just America, but the world. Again, thanks for your honesty, I believe your trying to find a solution and do what's right according to your own understanding.

The PDF on the post does not exist. You will have to re-post the PDF as a link or as Text. I would like to review the Passport Ending Treason document.


Clois did the other file work?



Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts

How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live" shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......


© 2020   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service