Another perspective found elsewhere...would like to hear particularly from those folks living in rural Texas about any restrictions they have run into.... "I was just reflecting over the concerns of many folks about the military's training activities in some cities. One always sees the most obvious invading army very clearly, while missing the guy coming up on your flank. Managing an agricultural operation has been a real eye-opener, for me, with regard to government invasion. I feel we have less to be concerned about with relation to a military invasion than we do about a regulatory invasion. People in California, and through out the country, own property upon which they may not do anything other than pay the mortgage and the taxes."

http://countrylife.net/offthegrid/forum2/12150.html

-- Shelia (shelia@active-stream.com), February 19, 1999

Answers

The "invasion" was made and consolidated following the Civil War. In both North and South. One of the results of the Civil War was the conversion of the united states of America, populated by freemen (citizens) and slaves, into The United States of America populated by Citizens. This meant a change in ownership of all property. All property now is the property of government. Through title (a privilege) you have the use of the property as long as you are a good Citizen. Violate some traffic law, and you will see who owns your vehicle and your right to travel. Don't pay your property tax (tribute) and you will see who owns "your" property.

-- a (A@AisA.com), February 19, 1999.

"A" is absolutely correct. Take your vehicle, for example. If you own it outright, dig out the title and look at it. It's not a Title, is it? It's a Certificate of Title, or similar wording. The actual Title resides with the state. If you insist on driving "your" vehicle on public roadways without the state's permission in the form of license and registration - and without paying ransom to a private company... insurance, you know - the legal definition of what they will do when they seize your car is "re-possession" - because they own it. You don't own your car, anymore than you own your home... the bankers have seen to that. For example, when a municipality floats a bond, essentially applies for a loan, what do you think they are using as collateral, hmmm? Your property... yours only in the sense that you get to pay the banksters outrageous usury, and the state a confiscatory sum, for the privilege of residing there. A hundred years ago in this country, a person could go to Europe for ten years, arrange for nothing more than a caretaker for his property, and be able to return and find all his property still in his possession. Try that today and you will find someone else living in your home. The title will have been reassigned in your absence because you failed to pay your "rent", in the form of taxes, to the landowner, the state.

Come Y2K, expect this issue to heat up. Literally million of people may lose their homes because they will be unable to pay their "rent" to the goonverment, just as occurred in the Great Depression. Tax sales were the #1 reason folks lost their homes then, and the same forces will conspire ion the coming crash to once again make the state and banksters rich on the backs of the people.

There may be one telling difference between the foreclosures in the Depression, and the ones to come. Back in the 1930's most folks had faith in their government, information was relatively tightly controlled, and most folks went along with tax sales because it was "the law". Things are a lot different today... witness the information explosion, the attitude (sadly, accurate in almost all cases) that the government consists for the most part of a bunch of lying scoundrels right down to the local level, the less, shall we say, 'Christian' ethics that currently prevail, and the wide availability of high-powered weapons. Suffice it to say that, if I worked for a county sheriff's department, which is in charge of all such foreclosures, I'd be looking to retire or change jobs. They couldn't pay me enough to throw large numbers of people out of their houses, especially since many will (correctly) identify government stupidity, laziness and cupidity with the banksters in not dealing with Y2K effectively as the ultimate source of their homelessness. In fact, I fully expect that in may areas, the sheriff will simply declare a moratorium on foreclosures, at least until he has time to invest in an M1 tank from which to conduct them. Even then, the Old West custom of "dry gulching" will probably prevail to a degree, and I expect that after a cetain period foreclosures will cease simply because there will be no one left that cares to perform them.

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 19, 1999.

Who has more details on getting an alloidal title to your property? My wife and I are gunning to pay off our house this year and I would LOVE to get rid of the rent after that, if such a thing is still possible in this "free" country.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), February 19, 1999.

I beliieve it was Oliver Wendell Holmes, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who said there is no functional difference between a tax and a fine for criminal action. In other words, earning money or owning property are -- in effect -- criminal acts, for which a fine is levied.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 19, 1999.

In Texas, we are subject to the Escheat principle/law/whatever that deems that your property/assets go to the state if you forget to execute a will. You, as an heir, can fight it, but it's very time- consuming and expensive, obviously.

-- Lisa (Lisa@work.now), February 19, 1999.

For once the ol Bear is speechless. (this is a RARE occurence)

To A and Why2K, keep it up. You guys are right ON. The Bear could hardly think if anything to add.

-- Greybear, wow!

- Got Freedom?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 19, 1999.

Justice Holmes was correct in his remarks. Whether it's called a tax, permit or license fees or a fine, it not only amounts to the same thing, it is the same thing. Take the issue of licensure, for example. Most folks, if you asked them, would say that a license was a kind of diploma given to you after passing a test to lessen the chances that you would harm person or property in your act of doing whatever the license was for. That's one explanation, but the real explanation is found in the legal definition of a license. You see, a license is permission from the state to do something that otherwise is illegal for you to do. For example, it is illegal for a citizen to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. If a citizen wishes to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways, he must apply to the state for a dispensation, in other words, a license. License in hand, he can then do what is illegal with no fear of prosecution. Driving is still illegal, but the state has granted you license to break that law with impunity, so long as you obey all the other statutes that come into play once you have obligated yourself with a contract, such as a driver's license. By signing the contract (license), you agree to pay the stated fines if you break any clause of the contract, like speeding, or failure to wear a seat belt. Whether or not anyone has been injured due to your actions is immaterial - you are in the arena of contractual law, and there need be no injured party save the state, who is merely enforcing the (one-sided) terms of its contract with you.

Start thinking about this in terms of other licenses, such as firearms, buildings permits, etc... all these license requirements are ostensibly designed to protect the public from itself, but in reality are just methods to enslave it. This is certainly not a popular view, but understanding it is essential if we ever hope to regain a semblance of freedom in this country. As it stands now, you are subject to myriad laws that can be casually inflicted upon you for any or no reason. Here's an example that most of you will hate because you have been conditioned to do so - drunk driving laws. If a person gets drunk, drives home, causes no damage along the way, should he be prosecuted for his actions? Remember, we are not discussing an incident where he hurt someone or something, but where he just drove home in an inebriated condition. By any standard of liberty I know, he should not. I can hear the reaction to this: "Oh, my God, what are you saying? Don't you know drunk drivers kill 25,000 people a year? How can you say they shouldn't be prosecuted?" I agree that drunk drivers who kill or injure people or property should be prosecuted. However, one of the tenets of English Common Law, which is the basis for jurisprudence in this country, is that there is no crime if there is no victim. However, the introduction of a license (contract) changes the whole picture. The DWI suspect is no longer being tried under Common Law, but under contractual law.

The argument can be made that the potential for a drunk driver to do damage is so great that the law shouldn't apply. All right, here's another example: If you are stopped for failure to wear a seatbelt, who are you putting in danger? No one except yourself... oh, almost forgot, the state doesn't wan't you hurting yourself because it's expensive to render medical care to their slav..er, citizens. Also, if you're the licensed driver, those pesky contractual obligations rear their ugly heads again. What if you're only a passenger? By entering a licensed conveyance, you are subject to the contractual elements by default, according to the state.

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 19, 1999.

Great, Why2K! My only disagreement is that if you read the statutes as some have the drivers' license is only applicable to those engaged in "commerce." Many resisters fight the driving licensing requirements in this way.

Then there's the whole 'right versus privilege' propaganda put out in the last decades to brainwash, uh, convince citizens to comply without question.

Wanna talk about marriage licenses, and the third party in every licensed marriage - The State? And how the state has jurisdiction over all that "issues" from the marriage. Gives a different sort of slant to legitmacy, and the reason why the state thinks it owns the children of legitimate marriage (all that issues from the marriage). LOL, sheet-flapping in the breeze!

Great discussion.

Got small 'a' anarchy?

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), February 19, 1999.

WHY2K, you hit one of the many and large hot buttons on the old Bear.

Seat Belt Laws.

Dismissing the application of seat belts for children, The Bear thinks: The only end of the logic chain that starts with seat belt laws is as follows:

One of these days I'm gonna walk (or waddle) into Mickie Ds and as I approach the counter I notice a section of the floorthat looks like a floor level scale. Oh, well. As I start to place my order for a QPw/C and FF and oh go ahead and throw in an apple pie, a red beam comes out of the wall and scans down my person.

The clerk says "Sorry, sir, according to the new fedral regulations your weight to height ration are in excess of what has been determined by the Surgeon General to be healthy for you. You may only order the salad with the lo-cal dressing and the diet drink"

-- Why is the logic in the above drama any different from seat belt laws? (it's a drama because of the Bears response which was NOT given here due to probability of melting sceens and upseting the gentle souls amongst us).

-- Greybear, pass the butter, please

- Got Lard?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 19, 1999.

Excellent point, thanks for mentioning it. Many states do indeed have that commerce clause, wherein the only people who were licensed originally were truck drivers, taxi drivers, and so forth. In fact, in most states, the only authority the State Police or Patrol originally had was over commercial vehicles and their drivers. But as is so often the case with police power, it grows exponentially, along with more laws to keep it fed. "If you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail...".

As regards marriage licenses, that is why the family services people can swoop down willy-nilly and take people's children from them. The state considers the kids to be their wards, irrespective of their natural parents wishes. A side note on this, just my opinion, just for free:

Funny, isn't it - take any other creature besides man, and attempt to spirit their young away... they will fight to the death to keep it from happening. People, in contrast, give up their children to their false god called the State without a fight. Once again I hear the sheep bleating..."Well, Why2K, what do you expect us to do? If we resist, we will die and our children will be taken anyway." Yes, and if you try and keep your children, that may well happen. However, it is important to keep those who would come for your children aware that their actions might lead to their death, also. They brazenly come for your children, given to you by God Almighty, because they expect that you have been properly conditioned and will not put up any resistance. They will place your children in a foster care system full of neglect and sexual abuse. They may arrange for you to never be able to see your children again. Your children may lead lives ruined by heartbreak caused by separation from loving parents at a tender age. It's a very personal decision, but as for me, they will not take my children, or they will take my children over my dead body - and several others. There are worse things than death, - it's important to keep that in mind.

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 19, 1999.

Good example, Greybear. That is where seat-belt-law mentality is ultimately leading, to the complete totalitarian state - wherein the word shall go forth, "That which is not forbidden is now mandatory."

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 19, 1999.

Gee guys, thanks...now I know I'm not the only one who feels as if things have gone too far.

'In other words, earning money or owning property are -- in effect -- criminal acts, for which a fine is levied.' And so that's why we get so nervous when tax time rolls around. One mistake and everything's up for grabs.

'...your property/assets go to the state if you forget to execute a will.' Thanks Lisa, I live in TX but I didn't know this...

In all that has been said the only thing I would object strenuously to is the drunk driver argument... it's more analogous to threatening someone's life ...i.e., pointing a gun in their face and saying I just might blow your brains out... just because they don't carry out the threat doesn't mean it's not a crime.

-- Shelia (shelia@active-stream.com), February 19, 1999.

Why2K: Talk about looking at things in a new way! Wow!!! Great points, thanks.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), February 19, 1999.

Stop Greybear, you're killing me!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

You're logical conclusion is excellent but I choked on a turkey ham sandwich with real mayo I'll have you know.

Got milk?

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 19, 1999.

WhyY2K:
Excellent, informative posts -- Much better than my rant.

Hopefully, if there is an opportunity to start over (TEOTWAWKI), some of those/us reading and understanding this thread (and others similar here and on other sites) will be able to influence the avoiding of the traps we find ourselves in today.

-- A (A@AisA.com), February 19, 1999.

Ever studied the issues of citizen sovereignty? Kinda interesting.

Got a tent?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 19, 1999.

Why2K, this is an excellent discussion.

You wrote:

<< Funny, isn't it - take any other creature besides man, and attempt to spirit their young away... they will fight to the death to keep it from happening. People, in contrast, give up their children to their false god called the State without a fight. >>

Yes, I have been pondering this lately. I decided that I probably would not resist to the death if they came to take ME away. Better to live to fight another day. But I have decided that I will indeed fight to the death if they come to take either my wife or my children. Better that my lady or my kids know that their husband/dad would lay down his life for them than that the last image they have is of me kow towing to some gov't flak. Thanks for solidifying my own resolve.

Do you (or anybody) have any more info on alloidal property titles?

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), February 19, 1999.

Franklin, thanks for your comments regarding wife and children, and their defense... it's an issue that's serious in the extreme, and certainly calls for sober thought and resolve.

I've studied the allodial title/land patent issue in some depth, and so far as I know, none of the arguments and techniques used, however well put together, have stood the test of our current Admiralty Court system. After a great deal of research, it appears to me that once something has been paid for with a debt instrument like Federal Reserve notes (they are debt notes, not bona fide Constitutional money), it is forever removed from an opportunity to regain an allodial title. This may be because it becomes a debt instrument itself, I'm not sure. All I know is that all methods so far have failed, even when the title in question has been obtained with Constitutional money, e.g., gold or silver. Hardly surprising, considering the corrupt and wicked playing field one is forced to play in.

Diane, the sovereign citizen issue ties in closely with the allodial title issue, since, as was once said, "Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist." I've looked into it and believe that short of a restoration of the government - a restoration, mind you, not a revolution - and a return to Constitutional principles, there isn't much chance of becoming 'sovereign' once again, except in one's spirit. Certain jurisdictions tolerate the sovereign movement better than others, but it's like pulling teeth even then, and in other areas the courts give it short shrift. Any restoration isn't likely to occur until this present system falls... of its own sheer weight, in all probability. Y2K may hasten that fall, or it may enable the current power structure to consolidate its control, but even then its demise is still certain.

"A", here's hoping folks like you and I can make a difference in the coming years. BTW, thanks for starting me up... it's been cathartic :)

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 19, 1999.

Franklin - just do a search on Dogpile for alloidal - I've read some great stuff out there that is just what the doctor ordered.

Why2k - what can I say my man? - you've not put a foot wrong so far, you are damn right in everything you've said. Talking about drunk driving, I was recently incarcerated in an Orange County, CA, jail for three days for walking home after a night on the piss. Only in America...

It's up to all of us to fight tooth and nail to preserve whatever we have left and to change the laws if we get a chance - y2k may give us that chance but TPTB are ready for that eventuality, hence all the wargames going on these days, practising fighting American citizens on American soil, taking away guns and no doubt taking away those who would protest. It will not be pretty.

Shelie - I'm going to take the liberty of posting this piece about guns and the reason why there are plans to disarm the population - I know this is a very contentious suject for most of us but the article bears reading - it may give you a different perspective on things...

"GUNS OR NO GUNS - A TIME TO TALK"

So often the debate over gun laws degenerates into this black and white confrontation. Fixed position v. fixed position. No shades of grey. No common ground. No communication.

And what does this mean? It means divid and rule, the classic method throughout human history of the few controlling the many.

It is time to start talking to each other and to end the abuse - on both sides. It is not one group or another who will lose their freedom to the global dictatorship if we fail to unite. It is all of us, Christian, Jew, Arab, Democrat, Republican, environmentalist, New Age, Old Age, pro-gun and anti-gun. When freedom goes, it means the freedom of everyone. Not just the freedom of people we don't agree with. I think we need to conduct the campaign over guns in this light and from this perspective. It is not as simple as guns are bad, so ban them, and people who want guns must be violent, so ignore them.

It seems to me that we have become ensnared and diverted into the wrong debate. The argument has focused on guns. Are they good or bad? Should people be allowed to own them or should they be banned?

I can understand the views of both sides, but it is the wrong debate at the wrong time. Surely what we all need to focus on is...what is the motivation of those who wish to take guns out of circulation now?

If we get sucked into the guns are good or bad debate, the real reason behind current events will be lost. This is precisely what the Elite wish to happen, indeed are trying to make happen.

Firstly, it is quite obvious as I travel and speak in many countries that the attempt to disarm the population is a global phenomenon. In the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and so on, I find the same scenario of problem - reaction - solution.

Someone goes crazy with a gun and many people are killed or maimed. There is a media-political outcry over guns in that country, and the outraged and manipulated public demand what they are conditioned to demand - the banning of guns in society.

In the UK we have had the horrors of Hungerford and Dunblane; in Australia there was the Port Arthur massacre; and similar incidents have happened in New Zealand and, of course, many times in the United States.

The reaction is the same every time: Ban guns.

Making guns against the law will not stop violent people from getting hold of them. The world is awash with organisations (mostly government supported) which supply weapons illegally to entire countries, never mind individuals. The gun used in Port Arthur was one that had been previously handed over to the police by its owner! So how did the killer get hold of it?

What's more, the victims of such tragedies are manipulated to support the game plan. What a grotesque sight it is to see the families of dead children, going through their unspeakable and unimaginable grief, being used to front the anti-gun campaings of those responsible for orchestrating the very horrors in the first place. It is also interesting to note that again and again the gunmen involved have the classic traits of a mind-controlled robot, be it Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane or Martin Bryant in Port Arthur. Programming someone to do this, given the scale and sophistication of Elite mind- control projects, is very easy.

Another thing the ban-guns-lobby miss, is that while the pressure increases to take guns away from the public, the police and "security" services are armed to an ever greater extent all over the world. Britain once prided itself on its unarmed police force, but no longer.

Does anyone really believe it is a conincidence that at the same time the public is being disarmed, those who control the public are getting access to greater and more powerful weaponry? Come on, let's wake up here.

Quite clearly it is all being co-ordinated to some common global goal, and as the evidence is overwhelming that (a) we are looking at a plan for total global control, and (b) that some sort of military coup against the "dissidents" is part of that plan, it is pretty obvious what the game is.

Coups against unarmed populations are rather more straightforward than coups against people with weapons to defend themselves.

And before anyone accuses me of supporting violence and being "pro- gun," let me be absolutely honest about my own position. I would not pull a trigger to save my life. I would rather die standing up for peace than live by adding to the violence. But many people would use guns to defend themselves and those behind the New World Order know that. Hence the attempts to disarm them.

I am not pro-gun, but I am pro-freedom. And if those who support the disarming of the population get caught in the narrow debate and miss the big picture and context in whch it is happening, they and their children will live to deeply regret this lack of vision and foresight.

In the same way, it is vital that those campaigning to keep guns in circulation understand that the overwhelming majority of those who oppose them are genuine, decent, people who simply wish to live in a violence-free world. Both sides need to understand each other. It's time to talk.

As I explain in my books, the world is controlled by a pyramid structure. The few at the top manipulate, divide and misinform those below them. If the base of the pyramid unites, the peak is in serious trouble because the peak is only at the top because the base is holding it up there.

This is why dividing and therefore ruling the population has always been fundamental to human control in every society, era and culture.

It is time for all of us to unite behind the one value we all agree on. The right to be free. The question of gun control is a good place to start.

Let us stop talking to ourselves and start talking to those who disagree with us. Only then will be the base of understanding expand into all areas of society.

No matter what you think, where you come from, what you have done, or what colour your pigmentation, your freedom, or what is left of it, is being threatened by a highly imbalanced and cynical Elite who wish to turn Planet Earth into a global prison cell.

They can only do that if we are divided among ourselves and if we ignore what is happening around us. Never in known human history has it been more obvious that we need to unite behind what we agree on instead of being divided by focussing on what we do not.

We are in this together. And we will get out of it together - or not at all."

Link at

http://www.davidicke.com/diarticle-guns.asp

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 19, 1999.

Andy, I'm not quite 'getting' the connection between gun control and driving under the influence... other than the mass manipulation for the call to more control. On one hand I don't feel it's responsible to drink and drive...you are in effect playing russian roulette with someone else's life -- therefore it can't be claimed to have a 'victimless' intent.

Whereas a person bearing arms within his own home/property for the purpose of defense is merely stating they do not agree to become the victim to someone else's intent. I have no problem with this...as a fifty+ woman/grandmother who has seen oppressive actions by our govt. in years gone by; whose niece was murdered by some psycho who wanted to try out his gun; whose granddaughter told me she wouldn't go to middle school unless we gave her a gun (and this at a time when neither her mother or either set of grandparents had guns in the home); whose grandson is now being home schooled to avoid the rush to Ridlin....etc, ad naseum; I do understand the squeese toward control...and although I've some interest for my grandchildren's sake in seeing our society gained some sense of sanity and peacefulness, I do not think that can be found by limiting the individual's ability to defend hearth and home.

But neither do I think we can throw out all limitations and come out on the other side of this overpopulated world with anything other than anarchy which will make the wild west look like child's play...

I certainly don't have a solution...I think we do have to take an honest look around us and realize that not all humans are capable of self-governance ... and as has always been so, we need some rules of the road... less is better...

-- Shelia (shelia@active-stream.com), February 20, 1999.

'whose granddaughter told me she wouldn't go to middle school unless we gave her a gun...'

NO! we didn't give her a gun! thought I better add that...it pretty much floored us... we didn't have a clue re: how violent the schools had become...she at age eleven did know, or had heard rumors and was literally terrified of going on to middle school...(oh, and this was in a 'good' upper middle class neighborhood...best schools in the area).

-- Shelia (shelia@active-stream.com), February 20, 1999.

you guys are more anarchic than plenty of Anarchists I've met. Bravo!!

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), February 20, 1999.