It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.

Similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If I try to kill the Tiger to keep from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. This Tiger illustration is intended to show where the God-Given Right of property ownership extends, through direct application of what Natural Law says about it.

While I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief (or person eater) have the Right to the food, decided through war.

A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by Civil and/or Constitutional Law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If "Property" had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign (AKA Ultimate Authority) can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud. The confusion of differences in "meaning" is one of a Sovereign's jurisdiction.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.

Similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If I try to kill the Tiger to keep from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. This Tiger illustration is intended to show where the God-Given Right of property ownership extends, through direct application of what Natural Law says about it.

While I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief (or person eater) have the Right to the food, decided through war.

A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by Civil and/or Constitutional Law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If "Property" had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign (AKA Ultimate Authority) can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud. The confusion of differences in meaning is one of a Sovereign's jurisdiction.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.

Similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If I try to kill the Tiger to keep from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. This Tiger illustration is intended to show where the God-Given Right of property ownership extends, through direct application of what Natural Law says about it.

While I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief (or person eater) have the Right to the food, decided through war.

A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by Civil and/or Constitutional Law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If "Property" had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign (AKA Ultimate Authority) can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.

Similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If I try to kill the Tiger to keep from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. This Tiger illustration is intended to show where the God-Given Right of property ownership extends, through direct application of what Natural Law says about it.

While I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief (or person eater) have the Right to the food, decided through war.

A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by Civil and/or Constitutional Law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign (AKA Ultimate Authority) can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.

Similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If I try to kill the Tiger to keep from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. This Tiger illustration is intended to show where the God-Given Right of property ownership extends, through direct application of what Natural Law says about it.

While I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief (or person eater) have the Right to the food, decided through war.

A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by Civil and/or Constitutional Law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.

Similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If I try to kill the Tiger to keep from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. This Tiger illustration is intended to show where the God-Given Right of property ownership extends, through direct application of what Natural Law says about it.

While I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief (or person eater) have the Right to the food, decided through war.

A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.

Similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If I try to kill the Tiger to keep from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. This Tiger illustration is intended to show where the God-Given Right of property ownership extends, through direct application of what Natural Law says about it.

While I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief have the Right to the food, decided through war.

A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.

Similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. This Tiger illustration is intended to show where the God-Given Right of property ownership extends, through direct application of what Natural Law says about it.

While I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief have the Right to the food, decided through war.

A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.

Similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. This Tiger illustration is intended to show where the God-Given Right of property ownership extends, through direct application of what Natural Law says about it.

While I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief have the Right to the food, decided through war.

A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. So while I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief have the Right to the food, decided through war.

A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends. A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war. But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends. A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war. But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends. A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war. But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends. A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was their attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war. But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends. A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was their attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war. But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends. A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was their attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war. But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends. A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law, but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was their attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war. But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends. A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law, but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax.

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was their attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war. But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends. A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law, but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design.

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was their attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.

It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acquired, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right. If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war. But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends. A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.

In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).

Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it.

Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by civil and/or constitution law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law, but we are.

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness.

This was absolutely by design. If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

This word can have different meanings.

This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud.

I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was their attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.

My right to swing my arms stops at your face.

This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.