Sign the Declaration


Now, simply by adding your comment with your name and any thoughts you might have to the bottom of this article, you can electronically sign the Shire Society Declaration! While you can be in the Shire as a state of mind, it makes sense to live close to others who believe as you do. You are encouraged to immiGREAT to the Shire and join the Free Streets Project. Plus, you can add yourself to the Shire Map.

To learn about how the Shire Society Declaration came to be and to see high resolution versions of the originals, please visit the History page.

Perhaps you’d prefer to sign a physical copy that you can keep? Just grab this PDF and print it out for you and your friends and family to sign!

Shire Society Declaration

 

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED witnesses to the lesson of history — that no form of political governance may be relied upon to secure the individual rights of life, liberty, or property — now therefore establish and provide certain fundamental precepts measuring our conduct toward one another, and toward others:

 

FIRST, each individual is the exclusive proprietor of his or her own existence and all products thereof, holding no obligations except those created by consent;

 

SECOND, no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual;

 

THIRD, each individual has the inalienable right of self-defense against the initiation of force;

 

FOURTH, explicit voluntary association is the only means by which binding obligations may be created, and claims based on association or relationships to which any party did not consent are empty and invalid;

 

FIFTH, rights are neither collective nor additive in character, and no group can possess rights in excess of those belonging to its individual members;

 

We hereby declare our commitment to peace, individual sovereignty, and independence, and join the Shire Society.

283 Comments

  1. Need to work on the Web site

    Post a Reply
  2. Agree and affirm. D.J. Giancana

    Post a Reply
  3. hello, I am very comfortable being here
    <a href=”http://yudaherbal.com/lycopene-softgel/” rel=”nofollow”> lycopene softgel </a>

    Post a Reply
  4. Ethan Erkiletian

    Post a Reply
  5. Problem with this document is that it fails to recognize the origin of liberty and its precepts originate from God.  Individual liberty is the free gift of the Sovereign God to His creation and each person being created in God’s image has inalienable rights from God and are free to exercise their God given liberty without any interference or molestation by government, groups or individuals.

    Post a Reply
  6. I LIKE THIS. LIBERTY DOES NOT NEED DEFINITION UNLESS WE AGREE TO THE LIMITED IDEAS OF LIBERTY. There is no need to define it and we do not need to reference the Constitution either. Freedom is itself natural and not abated except by those who define it specifically. This i call the Tru reality Life IS. Government is only created as a means of controlling freedom, and therefore, does not fit the reality of true Freedom, like the Sun Shining. I am in, as president of seeocean.org support Natural Environment and this Shire declaration.

    Post a Reply
  7. Skip77 It’s probably because not everyone believes that, and to narrow the document down to that specific set of beliefs would invalidate the declaration’s usefulness to whoever does not hold them. Insisting that everyone accept certain religious claims of the origin of liberty if they sign the document would be in exact defiance of what it stands for, whereas leaving mention of any gods out can potentially be all-inclusive, even allowing those gods to sign it if they wanted.

    Post a Reply
  8. Nick Ray – Jaffrey NH

    Post a Reply
  9. I just wanted to say that I only recently discovered the shire society. The values, the sovereign being, the ideas this community project… Amazing movement. I am prepared and willing to help but i could use a little help myself learning more. If anyone has time to share more about this i would greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Agreed and signed.
    Chris Stewart

    Post a Reply
  10. I do not believe in hierarchy in any form….This is wonderful to see….Connie

    Post a Reply
  11. I do not believe in any hierarchy….. Thanks for this wonderful site….Cj

    Post a Reply
  12. I not only agree to this document, I embrace it.

    Post a Reply
  13. So, I am curious: how would I have remedy if I bought a product that harmed me (like that drug company scandal two or three years ago), or if my neighbor started a pig farm and his effluence wound up in my water? This document offers no form of redress.

    Post a Reply
  14. It doesn’t, but that’s not what it is designed to do. In a free society you could handle these issues however you saw fit.
    If your neighbor is destroying your property with his pigs then he is initiating force against you. You can respond however you see fit. You can stop him, get reparations, or handle it however.
    I’m not sure which drug scandle you’re talking about, but if someone sold you a product that was more harmful or risky than advertised then you could do the same things listed above, since they have harmed your property, your body, through fraud. Also, in a free society there would be no FDA to ban safe drugs and give a false sense of security to dangerous drugs.
    In a free society there would be no free public courts. (Or maybe there would, I don’t know what the market would do. But there would be no monopoly on them upheld via theft.) But you would be able to hire an arbitrator to hear your case and/or a security company to enforce your rights and protect your property.
    Any other questions please respond here or message me.

    Post a Reply
  15. The entire system of taxation is a form of involuntary servitude, in
    particular, the income tax, all of us work a large part of the year for
    Uncle Sam, the essence of slavery, after all, is forced work for someone
    at little or no pay.

    Post a Reply
  16. Relying on anyone else or any government to ensure your own sovereignty is a huge mistake and will most likely be your downfall. You will find peace and security knowing that at the end of the day your actions speak for themselves. Peace doesn’t require laws, rules, or force. Less governance = less problems.

    Post a Reply
  17. This is awesome! Spread the word that we MUST let people be!

    Post a Reply
  18. messaging from london. 

    freedom to all .

    Post a Reply
  19. I will smoke my next bowl for freedom!
    Freedom, or die trying bc the alternative is not worth living for.

    Post a Reply
  20. you guys are actual cancer lmao

    Post a Reply
  21. Hi. My name is Jonathan and I’m a musician from Chicago but plan on being with the movement soon…
    I am here as a peaceful individual that love people as a whole. I’m 31 years old. I have multiple gifts an talents that I can offer to the community…

    I’m here to offer, learn, implement, an grow…

    I found this site searching for liberty and justice after 31 years of living around forceful environments. I was almost in tears to know that a place like Keene, New Hampshire existed.  Thank mother univers

    Post a Reply
  22. As a Paralegal and a USC Title 42 Private Attorney General it does my heart good to sign this important Freedom Document.

    Post a Reply
  23. I definitely want to move to NH in the near future!

    Post a Reply
  24. Andrew Cart Not everyone puts themselves on the map, but the North Country is a low population area.  People up there tend to be very independent and are very disconnected from what happens in Southern NH.

    Post a Reply
  25. The map of north NH is barren of people in general, not just porcupines.

    Post a Reply
  26. I agree with the precepts of the declaration.

    Post a Reply
  27. Suzanne Love,

    I agree.

    Post a Reply
  28. That’s Right, I Strongly Agree.

    Post a Reply
  29. A mans road is paved with good intentions ,what makes him a man is what he does with it!Mason or not 
    The quote is standing!.FFIDAVIT OF UNDERSTANDING re THE ADMINISTRATIVE/
    LEGISLATIVE “PRIZE” COURT MUST AFFIRMATIVLY PROVE JURISDICTION
    WHEN RIGHTS ARE RESERVED at UCC 1-308, ARTICLE III STATE COURT MUST DETERMINE CAUSE PURSUANT TO DUE PROCESS TO ESTABLISH CAUSE / JURISDICTION
    “It is well settled in administrative law that: “It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere ‘extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes’ as a ministerial clerk for an agency…” 30 Cal.596; 167 Cal 762. And;
    Apparent agency.
    Kotera v. Daioh Int’l U.S.A. Corp,9509-06556; A100452 (Or. 01/30/2002) (In the absence of agency based on actual authority, plaintiff (FRANCHISE TAX BOARD) was required to produce evidence of apparent agency to support personal jurisdiction over (Defendant). Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or App 274, 282, 945 P2d 1107 (1997). To establish apparent agency, plaintiff must have offered evidence that (1) Defendants held out Plaintiff as an agent, and (2) plaintiff justifiably relied on that holding out. See id. at 282-83. Plaintiff alleged neither such “holding out” by Defendants nor reliance on plaintiff’s part. The only evidence of “holding out” came from the affidavit submitted by Defendants, which acknowledged that Plaintiff was a director of the corporation. However, no evidence before the trial court established that plaintiff relied on that information in agreeing to the transaction. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence before the trial court to support an exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss on that ground;

    Post a Reply
  30. 14. Although courts sometimes have used “apparent authority” and “apparent agency” interchangeably, the distinction is important. “Apparent agency creates an agency relationship that does not otherwise exist, while apparent authority expands the authority of an actual agent.” Miller, 150 Or App at 282 n 4. Thus, apparent authority is relevant only if actual agency already has been established. Here, because plaintiff has offered no evidence to establish the existence of an actual agency, apparent authority is not implicated.);
    ORCP 21(A) (Defenses and Objections, How presented) (Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion to dismiss: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person,“A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency.
    Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency.” American Iron and Steel v. United States, 568 F.2d 284. And; “. . . judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise), act as mere “clerks” of the involved agency…” K.C. Davis., ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West’s 1965 Ed.) “…their supposed “courts” becoming thus a court of “limited jurisdiction”as a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes.” K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW., P. 95, (CTP, 6 Ed. West’s 1977)> FRC v. G.E., 281 U.S. 464; Keller v. P.E.P., 261 U.S. 428. And; A so-called Municipal or District court that is not a constitutional court is a legislative tribunal.
    In speaking on this subject in relation to the Constitution for the united States of America, the supreme Court said: “The term ‘District Courts of the United States,’ . . . without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States.” Mookini v. United States, 303 US 201, 205, 58 Sct. 543, 82 Led. 748 ((1938).
    The power of the Municipal or District Court is that of the old “justice of the peace” courts which were courts of “limited and special jurisdiction.” State v. Officer, 4 Or. 180 (1871).
    Inferior tribunals are subject to the supervisory control (judicial powers), and must show affirmative proof on the face on the inferior tribunal record to sustain a conviction. “If the court is . . . of some special statutory jurisdiction it is as to such proceedings an inferior court, and not aided by presumption of jurisdiction.” Norman v. Zeiber, 3 Or 198.
    Inferior tribunals have no presumption of jurisdiction in their favor and all that need to be done by Petitioner, to throw the burden of proving jurisdiction upon Respondent State, is to contest the applicability of the inferior tribunals jurisdiction to Petitioner. ” . . . if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.” Norman v. Zeiber, 3 Or. 198. And;
    The constitutional rule for inferior tribunals was set down by the Oregon Supreme Court in Evans v. Marvin, 76 Or. 540, 148 P 1119 (1915), a case involving a justice court:” . . . the constitutional rule that justice courts are of limited jurisdiction. …their judgments must be sustained affirmatively by positive proof that they had jurisdiction of the cases they attempt to decide.” Evans v. Marvin, 76 Or. 540, 148 P 119 (1915). And;
    Even the de facto Constitution and the State Statutes will clearly show that the EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY is vested Solely in the office of the Elected County Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor, Special Prosecutor and/or Attorney General’s Office.
    All so called Judges are in fact and law EXECUTIVE OFFICERS and that is why the so called JUDGE/ADMINISTRATOR CAN PRESUME TO ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST WHEN YOU FAIL TO APPEAR IN THE AIRSPACE OF “THIS STATE” BEING ABOVE THE LAND OF “THE STATE!”THAT HAS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICITON.
    ALL so called State Court’s are creatures of Statute created by the LEGISLATURE and are merely ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES which only have the authority or jurisdiction conferred by a Statute.
    If you search carefully the Senate and House Bills and the 1st Legislative Enactment or Session Law creating the Superior Court’s in your State, you will find that it says right in your own law books, that ALL your so called State Superior Court’s are really LOWER DISTRICT FEDERAL COURTS!
    THE PEOPLE HAVE NO STATE JUDICIAL COURT’S AVALIABLE TODAY! “THIS STATE” is a de facto FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and by fraud in the inducement, presents itself as a de jure State, but in fact and law is NOT a State in Original Jurisdiction pursuant to the authority of the 1st Original Judiciary Act wherein the District of Columbia is a de facto for profit copyright private corporation.
    “WHEREAS, THIS STATE” is a DE FACTO FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION under the NEW JUDICIARY ACT wherein the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA presumes Equal Footing as a de jure STATE.
    The issue re the use of the terms of art by the legislative branch within the several states identifying their legislative acts as in “this state” goes only to “Definitions” re the statute . . . should the act(s) not rise to malum se within “the state” and thereby give notice of a substantive connection to the subject matter as applying to some form of physical damage or substantive contact going to an actual controversy and a real party in interest . . . the statute has no mechanism granting authority to reach the Sovereign.  Capital crimes therefore are prosecuted by and through the substantive statute as being within “the state” when charged.
    Generally in a court proceeding you may challenge the implied charging statute by noting: “The prosecution has apparently only defined the statute as appertaining in”THIS state”, however, it appears the prosecution has failed to charge (certified”) the statute as with in “THE state” of Oregon.”  This is why the avoidance to certify charging documents going to malum prohibitum . . . as there can be no verifiable charging documents issued and no real party in interest can come forward . . . whereas, the statutory prohibition is only defined.
    REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE LIBERTY OF MAN
    TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE STATE
    Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).
    Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 US 262 If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
    Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 “Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    Post a Reply
  31. Byars v. U.S. , 273 US 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
    Boyd v. U S, 116 US 616 5th Amendment rights. “…constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed… It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”
    United States v. Bishop, 412 US 346 Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court is a perfect defense against willfulness.
    Owens v. City of Independence,445 US 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 Maine v. Thiboutot,448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21 Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.
    Shapiro v. Thomson,394 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 A Citizen must be free to travel throughout the [several] United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.
    Bailey v. State of Alabama,219 US 219 You have a right to own and contract your labor as you see fit.
    Clearfield Trust v. United States,318 US 363 Bank of United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia , 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24 (See citation below page 4)“Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen [where private corporate commercial paper, Federal Reserve Notes and other negotiable debt instruments are concerned]…. For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government.”(Emphasis added)
    Memphis Bank & Trust v. Garner, 459 US 392, 103 S. Ct. 692 Addresses the untaxability of obligations of the United States by or under State authority, (31 USC 3124, formerly 742) and provides that if any taxing requiring that either the obligation or the interest thereon, or both, be considered, directly or indirectly, in the computation of the tax it cannot be taxed by or under State authority.
    U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297 (1977) “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered is intentionally misleading”.

    Post a Reply
  32. AFFIDAVIT OF UNDERSTANDING re THE ADMINISTRATIVE/
    LEGISLATIVE “PRIZE” COURT MUST AFFIRMATIVLY PROVE JURISDICTION
    WHEN RIGHTS ARE RESERVED at UCC 1-308, ARTICLE III STATE COURT MUST DETERMINE CAUSE PURSUANT TO DUE PROCESS TO ESTABLISH CAUSE / JURISDICTION
    “It is well settled in administrative law that: “It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere ‘extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes’ as a ministerial clerk for an agency…” 30 Cal.596; 167 Cal 762. And;

    Post a Reply
  33. Apparent agency.
    Kotera v. Daioh Int’l U.S.A. Corp,9509-06556; A100452 (Or. 01/30/2002) (In the absence of agency based on actual authority, plaintiff (FRANCHISE TAX BOARD) was required to produce evidence of apparent agency to support personal jurisdiction over (Defendant). Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or App 274, 282, 945 P2d 1107 (1997). To establish apparent agency, plaintiff must have offered evidence that (1) Defendants held out Plaintiff as an agent, and (2) plaintiff justifiably relied on that holding out. See id. at 282-83. Plaintiff alleged neither such “holding out” by Defendants nor reliance on plaintiff’s part. The only evidence of “holding out” came from the affidavit submitted by Defendants, which acknowledged that Plaintiff was a director of the corporation. However, no evidence before the trial court established that plaintiff relied on that information in agreeing to the transaction. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence before the trial court to support an exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss on that ground;

    Post a Reply
  34. 14. Although courts sometimes have used “apparent authority” and “apparent agency” interchangeably, the distinction is important. “Apparent agency creates an agency relationship that does not otherwise exist, while apparent authority expands the authority of an actual agent.” Miller, 150 Or App at 282 n 4. Thus, apparent authority is relevant only if actual agency already has been established. Here, because plaintiff has offered no evidence to establish the existence of an actual agency, apparent authority is not implicated.);
    ORCP 21(A) (Defenses and Objections, How presented) (Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion to dismiss: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person,“A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency.
    Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency.” American Iron and Steel v. United States, 568 F.2d 284. And; “. . . judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise), act as mere “clerks” of the involved agency…” K.C. Davis., ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West’s 1965 Ed.) “…their supposed “courts” becoming thus a court of “limited jurisdiction”as a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes.” K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW., P. 95, (CTP, 6 Ed. West’s 1977)> FRC v. G.E., 281 U.S. 464; Keller v. P.E.P., 261 U.S. 428. And; A so-called Municipal or District court that is not a constitutional court is a legislative tribunal.

    Post a Reply
  35. In speaking on this subject in relation to the Constitution for the united States of America, the supreme Court said: “The term ‘District Courts of the United States,’ . . . without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States.” Mookini v. United States, 303 US 201, 205, 58 Sct. 543, 82 Led. 748 ((1938).
    The power of the Municipal or District Court is that of the old “justice of the peace” courts which were courts of “limited and special jurisdiction.” State v. Officer, 4 Or. 180 (1871).
    Inferior tribunals are subject to the supervisory control (judicial powers), and must show affirmative proof on the face on the inferior tribunal record to sustain a conviction. “If the court is . . . of some special statutory jurisdiction it is as to such proceedings an inferior court, and not aided by presumption of jurisdiction.” Norman v. Zeiber, 3 Or 198.
    Inferior tribunals have no presumption of jurisdiction in their favor and all that need to be done by Petitioner, to throw the burden of proving jurisdiction upon Respondent State, is to contest the applicability of the inferior tribunals jurisdiction to Petitioner. ” . . . if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.” Norman v. Zeiber, 3 Or. 198. And;
    The constitutional rule for inferior tribunals was set down by the Oregon Supreme Court in Evans v. Marvin, 76 Or. 540, 148 P 1119 (1915), a case involving a justice court:” . . . the constitutional rule that justice courts are of limited jurisdiction. …their judgments must be sustained affirmatively by positive proof that they had jurisdiction of the cases they attempt to decide.” Evans v. Marvin, 76 Or. 540, 148 P 119 (1915). And;
    Even the de facto Constitution and the State Statutes will clearly show that the EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY is vested Solely in the office of the Elected County Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor, Special Prosecutor and/or Attorney General’s Office.
    All so called Judges are in fact and law EXECUTIVE OFFICERS and that is why the so called JUDGE/ADMINISTRATOR CAN PRESUME TO ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST WHEN YOU FAIL TO APPEAR IN THE AIRSPACE OF “THIS STATE” BEING ABOVE THE LAND OF “THE STATE!”THAT HAS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICITON.
    ALL so called State Court’s are creatures of Statute created by the LEGISLATURE and are merely ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES which only have the authority or jurisdiction conferred by a Statute.
    If you search carefully the Senate and House Bills and the 1st Legislative Enactment or Session Law creating the Superior Court’s in your State, you will find that it says right in your own law books, that ALL your so called State Superior Court’s are really LOWER DISTRICT FEDERAL COURTS!
    THE PEOPLE HAVE NO STATE JUDICIAL COURT’S AVALIABLE TODAY! “THIS STATE” is a de facto FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and by fraud in the inducement, presents itself as a de jure State, but in fact and law is NOT a State in Original Jurisdiction pursuant to the authority of the 1st Original Judiciary Act wherein the District of Columbia is a de facto for profit copyright private corporation.

    Post a Reply
  36. “WHEREAS, THIS STATE” is a DE FACTO FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION under the NEW JUDICIARY ACT wherein the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA presumes Equal Footing as a de jure STATE.
    The issue re the use of the terms of art by the legislative branch within the several states identifying their legislative acts as in “this state” goes only to “Definitions” re the statute . . . should the act(s) not rise to malum se within “the state” and thereby give notice of a substantive connection to the subject matter as applying to some form of physical damage or substantive contact going to an actual controversy and a real party in interest . . . the statute has no mechanism granting authority to reach the Sovereign.  Capital crimes therefore are prosecuted by and through the substantive statute as being within “the state” when charged.
    Generally in a court proceeding you may challenge the implied charging statute by noting: “The prosecution has apparently only defined the statute as appertaining in”THIS state”, however, it appears the prosecution has failed to charge (certified”) the statute as with in “THE state” of Oregon.”  This is why the avoidance to certify charging documents going to malum prohibitum . . . as there can be no verifiable charging documents issued and no real party in interest can come forward . . . whereas, the statutory prohibition is only defined.

    Post a Reply
  37. REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE LIBERTY OF MAN
    TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE STATE
    Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).
    Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 US 262 If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
    Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 “Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
    Byars v. U.S. , 273 US 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
    Boyd v. U S, 116 US 616 5th Amendment rights. “…constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed… It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”
    United States v. Bishop, 412 US 346 Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court is a perfect defense against willfulness.
    Owens v. City of Independence,445 US 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 Maine v. Thiboutot,448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21 Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.
    Shapiro v. Thomson,394 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 A Citizen must be free to travel throughout the [several] United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.
    Bailey v. State of Alabama,219 US 219 You have a right to own and contract your labor as you see fit.
    Clearfield Trust v. United States,318 US 363 Bank of United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia , 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24 (See citation below page 4)“Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen [where private corporate commercial paper, Federal Reserve Notes and other negotiable debt instruments are concerned]…. For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government.”(Emphasis added)
    Memphis Bank & Trust v. Garner, 459 US 392, 103 S. Ct. 692 Addresses the untaxability of obligations of the United States by or under State authority, (31 USC 3124, formerly 742) and provides that if any taxing requiring that either the obligation or the interest thereon, or both, be considered, directly or indirectly, in the computation of the tax it cannot be taxed by or under State authority.
    U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297 (1977) “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered is intentionally misleading”.

    Post a Reply
  38. Carmine v. Bower, 64 A. 932 “Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question, and the estoppel by misrepresentation. When silence is of such a character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud on the other party to permit the silent party to deny what his silence has induced the other party to believe and act upon, it will operate as an estoppel.
    United States v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187 “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.” (Paraphrased)
    The original 13th Amendment of our National Constitutional, which stated: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” Laws for the Organization of the Territory of Michigan condensed, arraigned and passed by the fifth legislative council, (1833) Source – Michigan State Library. The above noted original 13th Amendment specifically addresses the condition now in existence in America today. Whereas, Bar members referencing the British Accreditation Registry, the Temple Bar, the four Inns of Court, and particularly the Middle Court presume to do business secretly and deceptively in re commerce and as regards the financial well being of the public generally. This state of affairs is clearly address regarding who has the burden to prove jurisdiction within the Clearfield Doctrine as regards the private nature of such practice.
    Boyd v U.S., 116 US 635. “…constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed … It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”
    Hodges v. U.S. , 203 US 1 (1942). “The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence.”
    Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw. 60 (1830). “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common (Natural) right and common reason are null and void.”
    Hurtado v. United States, 410 US 578 (1973) “It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power…Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the party and property of its subjects is not law.”
    Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,111 US 746 (1884).” Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away.”
    U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325. “Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people.”
    Butler v. Collins, 12 Calif., 157. 463.”Consent in law is more than mere formal act of the mind. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake.”
    Fuentes v. Shevin , 407 US 67 (1972). “A waiver of constitutional rights in any context must, at the very least, be clear; contractual language relied upon must on its face amount to a waiver.”
    Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722. “Every consent involves a submission, but it by no means follows that a mere submission involves consent.”
    Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579. “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”
    Kent v. Dulles , 357 U.S. 116, 125. “The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”
    Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 659-60. “Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself.”
    (see also Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31, 74 NE 1035; Cal v. Farley, 98 Cal. 09, 20 CA 3d 1032; Michigan Public Utilities Com. v. Duke,
    266 US 576, 69, 449.) State police power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, and welfare.
    California Bank v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 Pac. 832, 100 A.S.R. 130, 64 L.R.A. 918. “A state may impose an excise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a business which every private Citizen has a right to engage in freely. The privilege taxed is the right to engage in such business with the special advantages which are incident to corporate existence.

    Post a Reply
  39. “No agreement with a foreign nation and no treaty is free from the restraints of the Constitution. “ Reid v. Covert ,
    354 U.S. 1 (1957)
    84 C.J. S. º355, Mass. – Hough v. North Adams 82 N.E. 46, 196 Mass. 290 “A failure substantially to comply with the statutory requirements as to the mode and manner or making the levy invalidates the tax: and there must be strict compliance with mandatory procedures… No tax can be sustained as valid unless it is levied in accordance to the letter of the statute. ”
    With Reservation of All Rights, Remedies and Applicable Treaties without prejudice UCC 1-308 and particularly, ORSChapter 174 – Construction of Statutes; General Definitions – Section 174.030 favoring the Natural Right to prevail over the statute, UCC 1-308 reserves the right under Article III due process and thereby proceedings.
    “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
    Executed: July 12, 2010. (Signature_____________________SEAL(name)Beneficiary to the Trust
    STATE OF )
    ) S.S.
    COUNTY OF )
    On this Day of July 12, 2010, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared (name), personally known to me as the living soul whose name is subscribed to this instrument and acknowledged that he executed same.
    ___________________________________ My appointment expires: _______________ Notary SEAL
    (Blog Master’s Note: This posting too quite a bit of time to format, as I added the case links. Some cases phasing can be verified here, including Carnmine v. Bower, 64 A. 932; Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw. 60; U.S. v. Morris, 125 F. 322; and Butler v. Collins, 12 Calif., 157. The other cases I filled in as I could. Remember the Seal is your right thumb print with red ink on it. )
    (Blog Master’s Note: UP DATE: The trouble I had in finding this case Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., is beyond belief. I found it attached to another case and not by searching by volume and page. Both Find Law and Justia hid the decision. What were they hidding? Be sure and read through the case.)

    Post a Reply
  40. what I have posted hereon may be reproduced and your info entered and recorded into your UCC lien in your birth state and others to assure your rights a fully reserved together with your ucc notices and demands shall create a secured party creditor. I believe we all deserve to have our freedom and it is for our future freedoms that I share the information of which wiser men Than I have worked tediously to restore freedoms may they forever be free and happy amen

    Post a Reply
  41. I agree with the precepts of the declaration and enter my own as well to add to the precepts of freedom mentioned herein yet lacking… I am fully capable of self governing and I do not consent to be governed by anybody, no man has higher authority than I , God is my ruler and I am a child of GOD, the state didn’t grant me my life or my rights, GOD did, therefore I am subject tot GOD and Natural laws, I believe in the golden rule do unto others as you would have them do unto you, No corporation actor pretending to have authority ove my sovereignty shall be accepted over my own self governance I do NOT recognize unlawful authority for if it abrogates a right then it is not with standing as if it had not been passed and no one is bound to enforce it, therefore NOT LAW. I reserve my rights to defend myself to the best of my ability from any would be attackers or kidnapped who would attempt to rob me of my property my liberty or my life… only GOD MAY JUDGE ME. NO CORPORATE FICTION has any powers or authority over me for I do not consent.. all consent ever assumed has been removed past present or future by nunc pro tunc, and therefore none exists… May God bless you with honor and integrity to be lawful and not to attempt to force me into any adhesion contracts for which I am not willingly or knowingly with full written disclosure upon the instrument informing me of the bankruptcy of america and the adhesion contracts of slavery in you wet ink signature under penalty of perjury upon the instrument singed and notarized as required by title 26 section 6065 which requires it. notarized and binding in law… any non response is agreement to all terms of these contracts and information by Prevailing Supreme court ruling so shall this be binding matter of fact upon any and all corporations foreign or domestic courts, city,counties, states or federal corporations and governments notice to agent is notice to all, notice to agent is notice to principle it is upon you to inform and notify all agencies… notice to all governments this is the terms and notice and demands  amen so shall it be…

    Post a Reply
  42. In Practice
    3 ways to honor a presentment
    1. Accord & Satisfaction
    2. Conditional Acceptance
    3. Rejection Without Dishonor
    2 ways to dishonor a presentment
    4. Argument
    5. Silence
    In practice, after party “AB” makes a presentment, Party “CD” does one of the following:
    HONOR
    1. Accord & Satisfaction: CD Honors by accepting the presentment without recourse, and then satisfies whatever is demanded in the presentment. Example: AB presents a bill for services; CD pays the bill.
    2. Conditional Acceptance: CD Honors by accepting the presentment but with conditions. Effectively, that is a counteroffer from CD to AB. [AB would then accept the counteroffer as a new presentment from CD.] Example: AB offers his house for sale; CD accepts the offer provided that the house is first painted.
    3. Rejection without dishonor: CD rejects the presentment because it is defective. Example: AB presents a bill for services; CD returns the bill because there is an error (perhaps the price is wrong), but will accept the bill once the error is corrected.
    DISHONOR
    4. Argument: CD rejects (dishonors) the bill. There is no basis for rejecting the bill; the arguments have no relevency to the presentment. Often, ad hominems (irrelevant comments against AB) accompany the rejection.
    5. Silence: CD simply does not respond to the presentment, but remains silent. The presentment is thus dishonored.
    PROCEDURE
    Before Going to Court
    1. AB makes a presentment to CD. If CD honors the presentment, AB acts accordingly. So long as each party honors the other’s presentments, the process can move forward to resolution.
    2. If CD dishonors AB, then AB grants grace and repeats the presentment.
    3. If CD dishonors AB a second time, AB then makes an affidavit of the history of presentments. The affidavit is given to a notary public. The notary is requested to make, in behalf of AB, a formal presentment to CD.
    4. If CD dishonors the presentment, the notary grants grace and repeats the presentment.
    5. If CD dishonors the notary a second time, the notary makes a certified history of the presentments. The history is given to AB.
    6. At this point AB’s and CD’s administrative process is complete. The affidavit of AB along with the certificate of the notary, now becomes the basis for a court action against CD. 
    In Court
    You can think of the court process as a formal series of presentments. Each time a presentment is made (i.e. a court paper is filed), the responding party has an opportunity to honor or dishonor the presentment. The response, whether honorable or dishonorable, in turn becomes a presentment. Your objective is to never dishonor the other party’s presentment. If the other party persists in argument or silence, you can stay in honor by refusing his arguments for cause, stating the cause, and giving him an opportunity to cure the defects. If he refuses to stop arguing, you stay in honor as he continues in dishonor.
    Parens Patriae
    Parens Patriae originates from the English common law where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as infants, idiots and lunatics. In the United States, the parens patriae function belongs with the states.
    At least in theory, two reasonable but contending people will honor each other and attempt to resolve the problem at hand. In actual practice, often one or the other or both will act in dishonor.
    If both are acting in honor, the court has nothing to decide, for the parties will work it out together. If one of the parties is in dishonor, then the court must look with favor toward the person who is in honor. If both parties are acting in dishonor, the doctrine of parens patriae becomes effective.
    When both parties are in dishonor, either because they are arguing or confused or silent, the state now has full power to invoke parens patriae to control the affairs of the apparently incompetent litigants (idiots).
    MORE LAWNOTES HOME
    PRESENTMENT
    a: The act of presenting to view or consciousness 
    b: something set forth, presented, or exhibited 
    c: the aspect in which something is presented.” 
    Merriam-Webster dictionary, online
    A presentment occurs when something is brought to your attention. For example, you are given a bill for services. Or, you are accused of causing some harm. Or, you are notified of a situation.

    Post a Reply
  43. HONOR & DISHONOR
    This is the most important aspect of the law. In law, “Honor” or “Dishonor” is a process. It is what is done in response to a presentment. Throughout the entire process you must be in honor. This applies to everything you do in the legal process. To act with dishonor toward the other person is the highest sin in any system of law.
    High Principles
    “In ancient times, honor was the manner of being that we now describe as having integrity. In plain language, an honorable person avoids deception whenever possible, treats others with respect and sticks to her beliefs no matter how others think or act.” ~Carla Joy
    “Personal integrity; allegiance to moral principles.” http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwordia.com%2F&h=ATMUOv82tGNrpYRcLdVLlnjOZMfOTtz9CIv7lKMErSje3kTJDjXLRrUb5sIsQFtm4ElVYM78edlI1Z4PNy_o87sz6DeagunQXrCu8V4IgeMG99VoMjJETnmIgExEKnU9SNMZqfwzdw6z_rC_Og&enc=AZMD8aUQGDI58r6ig1aEVipe7ACoOXIXxVuczFUCIM8ruxQjdmlI9q9Qag_fHkSryuUKmtIH8vBo4yHIU5RJ1pZxCqF2tWsw2rdzsTwD70DbOWZVM8ck_ql6Q1T2_MgkpPJ7lmzEwl6C_UAEeUmvYnO78CcvFw-HWH3D92xi91z4ZjMxq4jOJTP4FtyX_I2Rhyw&s=1
    “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr. 
    “The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught.” ~H. L. Mencken

    Post a Reply

Sign the declaration: