Lindsey Graham is probably going to smile comfortably at what he probably believes are the ravings of a lunatic.

Anne's commentary is as strong as the Declaration of Independence and likewise amounts to a multi-count indictment of a would be tyrannical system of 'law' that Americans are being invited to adopt.

Her commentary is the Declaration of Independence simply aimed at another system of oppressive law.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury said Sharia law should be incorporated into English law (think Magna Carta).

Though his title is “Doctor” (i.e. teacher), the poor ignoramus, the jackass to quote Anne, does not even understand the rules of thinking, let alone law.

The Ten Commandments, English (and therefore American) law contradict Sharia law (and also Talmudic law) in every way.

The point that the foolish jackasses Williamson and Graham miss is that contradictions can never lead to truth.

Thou shalt not murder, and thou shalt murder, can never live side by side.

Thou shalt not commit adultery and thou shalt have sex with boys and girls and prostitutes if one's wife does not want sex with one, can never live side by side.

And while all of this effort to make Sharia law the law of the land takes place, and Williams is “in shock” at the angry response to his call for Sharia law, the head of the Church of England sits on her jackass in Westminster Abbey at a “fairy tale” wedding looking like she is both constipated and trying to pass a gall stone simultaneously.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/royal-wedding-pictures/8483012/Royal-wedding-the-Royal-Family-arrive-at-Westminster-Abbey.html?image=14

One can only hope and pray that she is sitting in a chair that flushes so that she doesn't have to leave the fairy tale proceedings.

My only concern for Anne is that calling for those she offends to come and get her, and that she is unafraid to lay down her life for the church militant goes too far for her own good…

First, Jesus had 'safe houses' among friends he could go to (as when he kicked butts and took names in the temple courtyard, or preached from a boat, just in case). That is to say, he was prudent in his offensiveness to the establishment.

Second, such 'unafraidness' that Anne claims is not realistic and smacks of boasting (as in Pride goeth before a fall). Jesus was terrified in the Garden of Gethsemane, he sweated blood and prayed several times to be relieved of the Crucifixion.

Third, taking prudent action to protect herself keeps her voice alive in order to be effective. Martyrs become revered cult figures which violates the First Commandment.

Other than that, Anne seems to be reincarnated from the 18th century when the Declaration of Independence was pointed courageously at king George III. And is now pointed at American politicians and foreign law that contradicts Biblical law, English law, and American law.

You go girl!!! 🙂

Jung, Chardin, NWO pagans all demonstrate the power of words of art over the minds of people sorely in need of connection to a higher power…which is God.

To become one's own god, to become god, the origin of truth, through canonization by words of art spoken by other gods in search of followers (e.g., Jung, Chardin (a Jesuit priest/geologist who, like followers of the goddess Pele, thought rocks have supernatural power)), is simply luciferian.

One does not have to read through the mental diarrhea of Chardin, Jung, Freud, and the mentally defective Skinner, to see the kernel of the falsehood of becoming a god because it is stated quite simply in Genesis…

Words of art, at their very best, make shady propositions acceptable (e.g., Tide is better than Ivory) and, at their very worst, make evil delicious and right and true.

And so they are more useful tools of influence than plain-speaking because words of art, when intended toward evil, are used in a way meant to tranquilize the critical faculties of the mind so that perfectly obvious questions or objections will not seek to be recognized from the floor. After all everybody knows what a “trade or business” is, don't they? No need to raise your hand and ask “exactly which trades or businesses produce gross income?”.

For example, the laughably ungrammatical, but highly effective, slogan of the last presidential campaign “Yes, we can.” No one on either side of the political spectrum raised the simple question “Do what?” and “To whom?”

For example, Chardin's word “noosphere” (it's not a concept that a rational mind could recognize because it's undefined) sounds profoundly meaningful to the spiritually hungry but uncritical mind. And so, the tranquilized mind believes Chardin is on to something deeply and spiritually meaningful and then and there signs on to be the follower of a strange god, forbidden in the First Commandment.

I have a highly intelligent friend who majored in philosophy in college and who read Chardin's work and thought it brilliant. But, she could never define “noospshere” without stumbling all over the place with malformed and vague generalities disunited from anything specific…not even a specific type of rock!

The serpent in the garden of Eden, one of the most famous creatures in all of history, has his brilliant followers who have inherited the forked tongue essential to words of art; the forked tongue that would open people's eyes to the 'truth' of their own status as gods while discrediting the God who created them.

Some initial comments:

Juliusbragg,

Here's an idea: There's research on this site and sedm re constitutional citizens using sec. 1983 and Bivens actions. There's also research that goes into detail about the term “citizen of the United States” and its geographical meaning in the 14th Amendment. You'll be able to answer your own question when you search out those legal analyses.

Thanks Prollins:

It would be a good idea for everyone to check out the exact wording of what constitutes domicile in their state codes.

It's interesting in the code citation you provided that a person “of age” has his or her domicile determined by the State as the place where the family is domiciled.

Raises a question about same sex parents. If the state was not a same-sex marriage venue, would the State's definition of domicile as the family residence apply to those 'individuals'.

Hmmm.

Prollins you wrote:

I'm not sure what the litigation in that video was about. But there is another video posted on this site, and on you tube, about a young man fighting a speeding ticket in Keene NH. He invokes an important aspect of the common law, which must have a true victim that has been harmed by a defendant's actions.

After cross-examining the cop who stopped him, and showing the cop perjured himself at the trial, the young man asked if there was anyone in court that he had injured…and that he would make restitution to them. No one claimed to be the injured party. The young man announced to the judge that he could not pay the fine, as there was no injured and complaining party in court to whom he could make such restitution. And he sat down. The judge said he would not rule then and there but would take the matter under advisement. Three days later the young man received a notice of dismissal for lack of evidence. That is there was no victim who had put a complaint of injury [subject matter, sworn facts] before the court.

I think the video in this thread is about the all caps name, that the human being was not the 'man' referenced in the court documents. I'm not sure how the 'administrator' for the all caps 'individual' would handle the issue of a fine. I'm not sure how that issue interacts with the common law or if it does where the common law requires a human victim.

The young man referenced above agreed to pay anyone in court who claimed he had injured them. I'm not sure how the FMOL would handle the money issue in relation to the artificial person.

It's probably better to invoke a true principle of common law (a real victim) than argue about the all caps name when there is a fine involved.

That, of course, is just my First Amendment standing-around-the-water-cooler opinion.

Anyone who thinks they are represented in Washington D.C. is seriously out of touch with reality.

Anyone who thinks the American people as a whole even care what the federal and state governments are doing to [not for] them is seriously out of touch with reality.

(And BTW according to the king your use of “founding fathers” is hate speech because it offends the lesbians at the National Organs of WoMEN. This is a demonocracy so you should have said “founding fathers and mothers” stupid even though the king encourages them not to live together as a family)

Now that the serious stuff has been addressed, let's get frivolous.

If an American is going to deal with politicians at all, it must be done on the local and state levels. State governments can just say no, not to laws proposed by Congress, (at least not at first), but to FEDERAL MONEY BRIBES which give the federal government control of the state legislatures. When they stop taking the monopoly money, then they can say no to misapplied federal laws.

It's a simple, fundamental economic fact that the Rothschilds have used to control much of the western world.

The founder of that dynasty said: “I don't care who makes the laws, as long as I control the money”. Which means, the lender controls the king who borrows money to keep himself on his throne.

As long as you take anything from the king, you must play by the king's rules.

And God told Samuel that if they took a king as their overlord and sovereign (their false god) that the king would whack them good… and exactly how the king would do it (I Samuel 8:6ff).

And more importantly, God told Samuel that when the people discovered their mistake, and complained against the king, their cries would go unheeded.

One rejects the protection of God's law to their own disadvantage and at their peril.

Politicians cannot correct the very thing they desire…free money and whatever they have to do or say to get it.

The people must correct their relationship to the government and PUT it in its proper place, but NOT PLEAD with it to do the right thing because SOCIALIST GOVERNMENTS BELIEVE THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THE RIGHT THING, THEY KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU (and certainly for them), so shut up and eat your genetically altered peas and carrots that you bought with the king's food stamps because God, ever true to his word, ain't listenin' to your whining (whoever you are).

Prollins,

These seem to be intuitively good ideas. How they are implemented will determine whether they wind up as useful ideas.

Backing up any Notice to the sheriff, judge, attorney, with the legal foundation for the notice would probably go a long way in preventing them from classifying one as a “sovereign citizen nut case”.

So part of the notice would probably benefit from a statement that the submitter is not part of any movement, patriotic, sovereign or otherwise.

Because the federal and state constitutions and all of the case law provided in “this notice” permits a man or woman to stand on their own two feet and assert themselves to be who and what they say they are.

That would put them on notice that they cannot use knee jerk reactions by assigning you to membership in some undesirable group as the authority for your position.