[wrbwrbwrb]

http://www.pauljjhansen.com/?p=293

If you have gold or silver coin jingling in your pocket then you might be in the constitutional state of California. If you have a single FRN in your pocket you can bet you are in CALIFORNIA.

State, “in this state”, “this state”, a USA possession
Posted on April 10, 2011 by Paul John Hansen

Your “State” is not the state you thought it was stating:

All the States have this in their statutes.

They teach you to claim the state as your safety, and in reality it is a trap in getting you to become a subject of the USA government, (US written corporate law) in the place of your free inhabitant standing.

>>

California Statute 6017Â Â Â “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and “includes” all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America. (“Includes” means that which is only what is included, your land probably is not included.)

California Statute 60017Â Â Â “In this state” or “in the state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States.

>>

Here are all of them for THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

Sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California that specifically limit taxation to federal territory within California

5304. “In this State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California, and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

6017. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

7321. “In this state” or “in the state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

8609. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

11205. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

30013. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

40006. “In this state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within those limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

41005. “In this state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within those limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

43009. “In this state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within those limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

45008. “In this state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within those limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

60017. “In this state” or “in the state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States.

[Ecurrexchangess]

[KuRoregioNka]

Palani- I just spent a few minutes at Paul John Hansen's blog. Very interesting site. He strikes me as a legal 'aficionado' much like yourself. My first thought was that this is your blog Palani--but I haven't gathered enough evidence to support that conclusion. Then I find out that Paul John Hansen is in jail. Then I thought, could there be a significant number of legal aficionados, and do they have forums where they can exchange ideas. Six months ago, the only such legal 'scholar' I was aware of was you, Palani. Now I know three if this blog is not yours. Marc Stevens is the other one. I'm going to start searching out the legal/anarchist sites--where maybe I could learn how to tie up the courts in knots with their own thinking. I need to learn some legalistic jiu jitsu. I learned a lot from Marc Stevens. I'm learning a lot from you. I'll be reading Paul John Hansen for a while, but it appears he's under attack by the 'system'. Must have pissed somebody off, or posed some danger to the system. Thanks for the link.

Hatha

[wrbwrbwrb]

An anarchist is considered anti-government. My attitude is that I love my government but must be able to pay for the services I use. As I have limited resources I therefore do not expect to use unlimited government services. But there are a number of people involved in investigating their relationship with government. Some go off the deep end with theories that will eventually be found to be faulty.

When in a hurricane a good sea anchor is your best friend. It slows you down and keeps your bow to the weather.

[wrbwrbwrb]

I should mention too, when I say I love my government, I actually mean MY government and not foreign governments disguised as domestic.

[Sdinozes]

`Palani, I believe your government does not exist. It has been long dead, replaced by a succubus. You seem to love law and rules but the rule of law is not the law of the land.

[wrbwrbwrb]

`Palani, I believe your government does not exist.

Everyone has a government. When you fail to exercise your own self-government then that the void will be filled externally.

As they operate in society today the State and the government are two separate entities. The People and the State are synonymous terms. Don't be confused by the plural nature of "People". People can be defined as singular as well as plural. When you accept representation then you have created a person and established a principal-agent relationship.

A county is an administrative subdivision of a State. However, there are no People in any county. The county was created by legislative act. The body politic of a county are villages, cities and townships. None of these entities have any People in them. I say that because of a single concept, that a municipality consists of the officers that represent it.

You might look at a map and confuse territory with a State as well. A State is composed of a body politic, also described as a body corporate. Government might have been created by representatives of the People for the benefit of the People but the People population of government is identically zero. Government works by operation of "persons". There is no flesh and blood in any "person". A "person" is a container of rights and duties. It is created by you but it is not you. A government might be created by you but is not you.

When you start confusing the government created by others for their benefit with your own government then you had better start planning on a life of serving others. The government of others was not created by them for your profit. It was created by them for THEIR profit. That is where the VOLUNTARY nature of government comes in for without your consent the system devolves to involuntary servitude. Should you volunteer into another's government by mistake be prepared to be disappointed with the outcome.

Consider those concepts for a bit.

[wrbwrbwrb]

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators: "...the distinction between a state and the people of a state has in this respect no foundation, each expression in substance meaning the same thing."

The violation that occurs by the CALIFORNIA legislature (and all other state legislatures) when they coin a phrase "within this state" is that they have no authorization to legislate for any other than their own body politic. They have exceeded their authority when they legislate for a federal plane (U.S. citizens) and presume that everyone falls into this category.

[KuRoregioNka]

You might look at a map and confuse territory with a State as well. A State is composed of a body politic, also described as a body corporate. Government might have been created by representatives of the People for the benefit of the People but the People population of government is identically zero. Government works by operation of "persons". There is no flesh and blood in any "person". A "person" is a container of rights and duties. It is created by you but it is not you. A government might be created by you but is not you.

When you start confusing the government created by others for their benefit with your own government then you had better start planning on a life of serving others. The government of others was not created by them for your profit. It was created by them for THEIR profit. That is where the VOLUNTARY nature of government comes in for without your consent the system devolves to involuntary servitude. Should you volunteer into another's government by mistake be prepared to be disappointed with the outcome.

Consider those concepts for a bit. I have considered these concepts. It is exactly what Marc Stevens says in his book Adventures in Legal Land. The state, which is the 'government' is a mental construct, not to be confused with the actual territory. So, Stevens tells us that it is the 'State of Arizona' that gives you a traffic ticket, and it is represented by those employed by the 'state'. Arizona itself is simply the piece of land that is within the borders called Arizona. It is not the piece of land named Arizona that has given you a traffic ticket. It is the 'State of Arizona'.

And you have brought a new piece of information here for me. The State, or the government, was created by a class of people for their own benefit. So, if I live in Arizona, or California or whatever the piece of land is named, I am not a part of the state. I am a free person until I acknowledge that these people who call themselves 'the State of xxxxx' have 'jurisdiction' over me. If I do not recognize that, they have no jurisdiction over me.

I presume that this interpretation of law arises from what it says in the Declaration of Independence--that the government derives its authority from the CONSENT of the governed. I believe that, and apparently so do the people who run the government for their own benefit.

Now, please explain how we grant consent to their government to do as it wishes with us? What happens in a court that satisfies their need for your consent? How does one grant them jurisdiction over ones self? That is not apparent to me. Can I just say that I do not consent to their jurisdiction, and claim that I am not a citizen of their 'state'? For an anarchist, this is where the rubber meets the road. Do tell all the ways we grant consent, so we can avoid doing so. Without the risk of going to jail.

It (government) is entirely based on force. Why then do they need my 'consent'? Is that the fundamental principle of law?

Hatha

[Snocioncilm]

Now, please explain how we grant consent to their government to do as it wishes with us? What happens in a court that satisfies their need for your consent? How does one grant them jurisdiction over ones self? That is not apparent to me. Can I just say that I do not consent to their jurisdiction, and claim that I am not a citizen of their 'state'? For an anarchist, this is where the rubber meets the road. Do tell all the ways we grant consent, so we can avoid doing so. Without the risk of going to jail.

It (government) is entirely based on force. Why then do they need my 'consent'? Is that the fundamental principle of law?

Hatha

NO. The fundamental principle in Law is the Protection of Private Property. Your body, your home, your property, etc. ALL of these are private property, and ALL JUST LAW is the protection of Private Property.

Because 'Common Law' has been replaced with 'Administrative Policy'. (Just like Silver and Gold have been replaced with fiat) You consent to be governed when you CONTRACT with these fictions.

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins = Where there is NO contract, there is NO case

Injured Victims are no longer the cornerstone of our 'Justice' system.

You CONSENT to their fictional 'Jurisdiction', when you agree (Silence is acquiescence) to US Citizenship.

US Citizenship is the crutch, as you cannot even get into the other Adhesion contracts such as SS, Drivers License, etc. ALL of these require US Citizenship to obtain.

[kneexyFreedly]

I presume that this interpretation of law arises from what it says in the Declaration of Independence--that the government derives its authority from the CONSENT of the governed. I believe that, and apparently so do the people who run the government for their own benefit.

Now, please explain how we grant consent to their government to do as it wishes with us? What happens in a court that satisfies their need for your consent? How does one grant them jurisdiction over ones self? That is not apparent to me. Can I just say that I do not consent to their jurisdiction, and claim that I am not a citizen of their 'state'? For an anarchist, this is where the rubber meets the road. Do tell all the ways we grant consent, so we can avoid doing so. Without the risk of going to jail.

It (government) is entirely based on force. Why then do they need my 'consent'? Is that the fundamental principle of law?

Hatha

My hunch is any type of paper: birth certificate, driver's license, social security card, marriage certificate, et al. Oh, and probably FRNs, bank accounts, employment contracts, voting/registration, passports...

(& of course, they don't need your consent, they just do it to cover their butts & make it 'legal' is another guess)

Am I close palani?

[Maribellin]

Social Security is the crux of it all.
The reason I say this is because Social Security defines "state" and "united states" much the same way as Palani is taling about.
All federal liability of taxes stems from Social Security.
The SS5 form denotes "US citizenship" that you sign under penalty of perjury of being. Same way with the W4 form.
Every time you sign a W4 you are signing under penalty of perjury to being a "US citizen" subjecting yourself to the jurisdicition thereof.
Without a ssn you cannot obtain a drivers license. You cannot apply for unemployment without first a ssn.
Everytime you ask the government to do something, or permission to do something, they need a ssn from you along with your consent signiture.

(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

Since when have any of these territories, including DC, ever been a state like you thought a state is?

[wrbwrbwrb]

Now, please explain how we grant consent to their government to do as it wishes with us? What happens in a court that satisfies their need for your consent? How does one grant them jurisdiction over ones self? That is not apparent to me. Can I just say that I do not consent to their jurisdiction, and claim that I am not a citizen of their 'state'? For an anarchist, this is where the rubber meets the road. Do tell all the ways we grant consent, so we can avoid doing so. Without the risk of going to jail.

First, if you go to jail it is either because of something you did or because others thought you deserving of it. You are responsible for what YOU do. You cannot be responsible for the errors of others. Since there is no way to gauge what others are going to do then rationally there is nothing you can do to forestall these "errors".

Some good ideas in posts following yours. But when all else fails the judge can always tell the bailiff to empty your pockets and if they find a single FRN (coins probably do not count) then jurisdiction attaches by the LAWFORM you have chosen. Another way is use of a ZIP code. I know of one fellow who had a search warrant executed on his home. What they were looking for was evidence that he used the ZIP code in his correspondence.

There are so many ways to establish jurisdiction (in the mind of the black robed actor) that it might be a foregone conclusion that you are always going to be found in a federal jurisdiction. I don't mind this so much now-a-days since I found out about what Harry S. Truman did on June 25, 1948. My date of nativity was after this date. By treaty with the French us inhabitants are guaranteed certain things 'IN THE MEAN TIME'. This would be the time between the signing of the treaty of cession of Louisiana and the time we inhabitants are admitted according to the principles of the federal constitution. This particular inhabitant has never had an opportunity to participate in a state established according to the principles of the federal constitution so 'IN THE MEAN TIME' is NOW. Now means I am in a federal zone no matter what I do.

Granted this reasoning applies to those born in formerly French territory but I believe a case can be made that it applies to ALL inhabitants as well under equal protection principles.

[wrbwrbwrb]

US Citizenship is the crutch, as you cannot even get into the other Adhesion contracts such as SS, Drivers License, etc. ALL of these require US Citizenship to obtain.

14th amendment U.S. citizenship is possible to avoid. It is called 15 Stat 249 in the Statutes at Large.

[wrbwrbwrb]

Am I close palani?

A lot of good points but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Getting rid of adhesion contracts is necessary but judges have been said to apply maritime law to a corncob floating in a bucket of water.

As in any journey you only arrive at a destination when you start. Till then it is a good idea just to map out the path.

[wrbwrbwrb]

Since when have any of these territories, including DC, ever been a state like you thought a state is?

Read up on the laws of the Forest for some good information. Territory is only attached to municipalities. The Articles of Confederation made no provisions for territories. Then Virginia was talked into removing certain lands that now would be described as Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan from their borders and giving these lands as territories to the newly formed United States under its' new constitution.

The new constitution created a municipality to attach these territories to. As states were created they were to be entered on an equal footing with the original 13.

Along around 1840-1850 communism and capitalism created a dipole to divide the country along. Slavery and non-slavery created another dipole of division. Workers (communism) and owners (capitalism) each had their own parties and to this day they are still engaged in a battle to the death (Dem's and Repub's) even though the carcass has been whittled to the bone. The battle lines are WHO is going to take office and by proxy which side is to have control of the leftovers. At this stage it doesn't matter at all which party is going to have control because each one is bound and determined to continue the charade. More important is the question "How am I going to hold the office holder responsible for his actions?" If you vote then you have agreed to go along with the will of the majority. If you don't vote and simply ask for an original oath of office and bond you have at least established that you are not represented by the actor in office and (in theory anyway) you can hold him/her responsible in a court of law for any injury he causes you.

Just another way of saying get out of the consent mode.

[Snocioncilm]

14th amendment U.S. citizenship is possible to avoid. It is called 15 Stat 249 in the Statutes at Large.

Can you 'avoid' something when you are 17 minutes old?

Avoid means to NEVER be in contact with.


Please do tell......

[wrbwrbwrb]

Can you 'avoid' something when you are 17 minutes old?

Avoid means to NEVER be in contact with.

AVOIDANCE, pleading. The introduction of new or special matter, which, admitting the premises of the opposite party, avoids or repels his conclusions.

[Snocioncilm]

AVOIDANCE, pleading. The introduction of new or special matter, which, admitting the premises of the opposite party, avoids or repels his conclusions.

I should have known to grab my Black's Law.......LOL

And i suppose i wouldnt even get to the 'avoidance' matter, unless i consented to 'Standing Under' the charges.

[wrbwrbwrb]

And i suppose i wouldnt even get to the 'avoidance' matter, unless i consented to 'Standing Under' the charges.

I think being called a 14th amendment "citizen" as having the same operation as going into a crowded bar on Friday night and yelling "Hey DUMMY". Anyone who answers up must think of themselves as a DUMMY and is likely to leave marks on me.