Subject: Re: Dr. Ed. Rivera on status of US - Republic or not?

Alright Jon, let's go with your statement then and define what
"your" framers meant when they used the term "FREE INHABITANTS" as
individuals that are entitled to ALL the privileges and immunities of
citizens. How does that statement change with reference to English
as the spoken and written word. It should be noted that when I
was born in Pasadena, California on July 15, 1957, I was never
given the opportunity to make ANY choices at ALL so it was someone
other than myself that "labled" me a US citizen. Now "voluntary"
is a word that's been around in the English language longer than
dirt so let's see how this word is currently defined:
VOLUNTARY (adjective) Sense 1 voluntary [BACK TO TOP] Meaning:
Of your own free will or design; not forced or compelled
Context examples:
man is a voluntary agent / participation was voluntary / voluntary
manslaughter / voluntary generosity in times of disaster / voluntary
social workers / a voluntary confession
Similar:
volitional (with deliberate intention)
unpaid; volunteer (without payment)
uncoerced; unforced; willing (not brought about by coercion or force)
self-imposed (voluntarily assumed or endured)
freewill (done of your own accord)
intentional; wilful; willful (done by design)
by choice (not by chance)

So there you have it Jon, it appears that the definition of this

word has changed very little over the years and if it HAS changed
with respect to government, please explain how and where this has
occurred for my edification.
Now that I can actually read, write and understand English and the
choices that were NOT made by Doug Herich, I am saying that I choose
to be a free inhabitant by virtue of the Articles of Confederation of
November 15, 1777 and that by virtue of this choice, I am entitled to
be left alone by all government employees when I am outside of the
territory owned by the United States of America. Unless the United
States of America you refer to is different than the United States of
America that I refer to in the Articles of Confederation of November
15, 1777, I have always been a free inhabitant because I have NEVER
"resided in the United States" and therefore have NO WAY of proving
that I am a US citizen to begin with. I will never admit to anything
that I can't prove...so please tell me, how can you prove that I or
anyone else resides in the United States when the definition of the
United States is defined BY the United States federal government
as all land owned by and ceded to the United States of America?
The Articles of Confederation seem to supersede the Constitution
of the United States as well as this Constitution for the United
States of America and were NEVER repealed. It is simply ASSUMED
that what you are saying is indeed correct unless you can support the
statements that you make with the written law. It is also important
to note that in "the Constitution" as well as "this Constitution",
the term free inhabitant is not even referred to giving the
impression that all free inhabitants just disappeared after George
Washington took the Article 2 clause 3 oath to "preserve, defend and
protect the Constitution of the United States." What happened to
"this Constitution for the United States of America"? Was it also
replaced by "the Constitution of the United States"? Where is that
statement or claim supported in written law and why is there no
trace of the Article VI written oath to "support and affirm this
constitution" having been taken by ANY executive officer known as
"President of the United States of America"?
It is quite telling to see that the play on words here is almost a
game to see who can figure out what this tangled web of words and
phrases really means. It also makes obvious a deliberate attempt
to mislead the reader in to believing that "this constitution"
was adopted when in fact it can be proven historically that it
was never adopted at all because no employee or officer, judge,
congress man/woman in the US government has EVER taken that Article
VI written oath (no one has taken it orally either but that is beside
the point because this oath is prescribed by law as an affirmation
which requires it to be in writing with actual signatures from
all those individuals that have agreed to affirm and support "this
constitution". The constitution of the United States was what we
got as a result and the document that you claim to support is and
never can be "this Constitution for the United States of America."
The Articles of Confederation were in fact adopted on November 15,
1777 and were never repealed; this you MUST agree IS the truth. So
now, if no executive officer, judge or member of congress has ever
taken the Article VI oath to support and affirm this constitution,
what proof is there that I CAN'T be a free inhabitant by virtue of
the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777?
Are you simply implying that we HAVE to be US citizens to live in
California (not the State of California but rather, the geographic
region known to be California as designated on every map I have found
to exist)? I tend to be more inclined to go with what I KNOW I can
prove with the written law so please support what you say and write
with the written law that corresponds to your claim of truth. We are
all learning this subject as we go because NONE of this information
is available in the mandated text books that are used to teach US
government history in the schools, both private and public.
The Organic Law is written law as well and it supersedes statute
laws which is why it is referred to as 'organic". The 4 components
of the Organic Laws are often foreign to attorneys and most judges
so it would stand to reason that there is confusion when it comes
to what they mean and how they relate to the US government and
the role it plays to serve its citizens. This kind of written law
is not taught in ANY of the law schools either even though it is
the very foundation of the statute laws we are told we MUST adhere
to and are ALL subject to even if we ARE free inhabitants and NOT
citizens of the several states.
I liken the statement made by current law enforcement government
employees that "we MUST ALL comply to the written laws and do exactly
what the government sponsored law enforcement employees are telling
us to do or risk being imprisoned for 'breaking the law' to the
statements and claims made by the British monarchy with reference
to the "authority of the crown".
The faith and reliance I have in Divine Providence coupled with
what I have learned from and been able to prove in the written law
is all I need to know that I am a free man amongst all the citizens
who voluntarily agree to be citizens instead of free inhabitants in
the several states. If someone else wants to donate their earnings
to government, I don't have any problem with it...only when I
am told that I have to pay taxes and have a "driver's license"
or some other document for government do I stand up and say NO WAY!
So then Jon, go ahead and pay all those taxes and get that license,
just don't tell other's that they have to do what you are doing
unless you can clearly support your statements and claims with the
written law you seem to love so much. No intention is being made
to offend you as that serves no purpose whatsoever. My intent is
to educate you so that you don't hurt yourself or others that may
assume you are correct. peace