Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

12 posts in this topic

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

( To motion the courts to attempt a rebuttal against the entirety of this document and all statements made)

1. Be it known to all who call themselves "government," their "courts," agents, and
other parties, that I, _____________________________
am a natural, freeborn sovereign individual, without subjects. I am neither subject to any entity anywhere, nor is any entity subject to me. I neither dominate anyone, nor am I dominated.

2. I DO NOT recognize and cannot be held in contempt of any law that cannot show a named individual victim(s), nor can I held be liable in contempt of any law that cannot show any property that has been stolen or damaged from any said individual or
individuals. As the "state" itself is not a person, nor a corporation itself can be represented as a single person, the state cannot represent itself as a property holder nor as an individual person whom is filing a complaint of stolen property or of physical
damage done to itself by a third party. Where no individual victim and no property stolen or damaged can be found, there can be no defendant nor prosecutor logically taken into consideration. See "Corpus Delecti- People V Lopez"

3. I am not a "person" as defined in "statutes" when such definition includes "artificial entities." I refuse to be treated as a "federally" or "state" created entity which is only capable of exercising certain rights, privileges, or immunities as specifically "granted"
by "federal" or "state" "governments."

4A. Since the Constitution is the supposed Supreme Law of the Land, in which all law derives, please show me evidence that I signed and contractually agreed to be bound to any state or federal constitutions. The Declaration of Independence states that the
government derives their power from the consent of the governed, yet I do not consent, I only operate or follow orders "under duress".

B. Under Duress, I may choose to comply with the "laws" which others attempt to impose upon me, but no such "laws," nor their "enforcers," have any authority over me. I am not in any "jurisdiction," for I am not of subject status.

5. Unless I have willfully harmed or violated someone or someone’s property without their consent, I have not committed any crime, and am therefore not subject to any penalty.

6. Thus, be it known to all, that I reserve my natural right not to be compelled to perform under any "contract" that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. Furthermore, I do not accept the "liability" associated with the compelled and pretended "benefit" of any hidden or unrevealed "contract" or
"commercial agreement."

7. As such, the hidden or unrevealed "contracts" that supposedly create "obligations" to perform, for persons of subject status, are inapplicable to me, and are null and void. If I have participated in any of the supposed "benefits" associated with these hidden
"contracts," I have done so under duress, for lack of any other practical alternative. I may have received such "benefits" but I have not accepted them in a manner that binds me to anything.

8. Any such participation does not constitute "acceptance," because of the absence of full disclosure of any valid offer, and voluntary consent without misrepresentation or coercion. Without a valid voluntary offer and acceptance, knowingly entered into by
both parties, there is no "meeting of the minds," and therefore no valid contract. Any supposed "contract" is therefore void, from the beginning.

9. From my age of consent to the date affixed below I have never signed a contract knowingly, willingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and intentionally whereby I have waived any of my natural inherent rights, and, as such, take notice that I revoke, cancel, and make void from the beginning my signature on any and all "contracts,"
"agreements," "forms," or any "instrument" which may be construed in any way to give any agency or department of any "government" any "authority," "venue," or "jurisdiction" over me.

1-A : Typical examples of such compelled and pretended "benefits" are:

1. "Birth Certificate": The fact that a "birth certificate" was issued to me by a local hospital or "government" agency when I was born, is irrelevant to my sovereignty. No status, high or low, can be assigned to another person through a piece of paper, without the recipient’s full knowledge and consent. Therefore, such a piece of paper provides date and place information only. It indicates nothing about "jurisdiction," nothing about property ownership, nothing about
rights, and nothing about subject status. The only documents that can have any significance, as it concerns my status in society, are those which I have signed as an adult, with full knowledge and consent, free from misrepresentation, duress or coercion of any kind. The issuance of a Birth Certificate directly violates the 13TH Amendment of the US Constitution. The numbers displayed on the back of the social security card represents that the said person is property of a Reserve Bank. When people’s very lives are made into contracted bonds or collateral, it is internationally recognized as "slavery". Furthermore the numbers found on the Birth Certificate also cite a connection with the Federal Reserve bank and can be issued as a collateral bank note/Bond (guaranteed by a person’s ability to pay taxes and/or create credit) , which
constitutes as another entity having ownership over another human life i.e. "Slavery". According to Black’s Law dictionary, slavery is defined as, :

A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. Webster. One who Is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him ; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. Civ. Code La. art. 35.

Furthermore, I cannot find any justification in having a Birth Certificate that is issued and owned by a bank or corporate entity, nor can I find legal justification that does not violate the 13th Amendment, to allow for the taxation of labor or to restrict a business from allowing a man born in the land mass known as "The United States" from working in his business without a government issued Social Security Card or government issued Birth Certificate.

2. The use of national currency to discharge my debts: I have used these only because there is no other widely recognized currency. For the courts to ask me to pay them in Federal Reserve notes is in direct violation of Article I section X Clause I, which states that only gold and silver can be legal tender. For the courts to ask me to pay with anything other than such is treasonous.

3. The use of a bank account: If there is any hidden "contract" behind an account, my signature therewith gives no validity to it. The signature is only for verification of identity. I cannot be obligated to fulfill any hidden or unrevealed "contract" whatsoever, due to the absence of full disclosure and voluntary consent. Likewise, my use of the bank account is due to the absence of an alternative. To not use any bank at all is very difficult and impractical.

4. The use of a "driver’s license": There is no real need for me to have such a "license" for travelling in a car. However, if I am stopped for any reason and found to be without a "license," it is likely I would be unduly harassed and penalized. ‘Driving’ is defined as engaging in commerce on the highway. i.e. buying and selling. like a taxi or delivery driver for example, so if one does not engage in commerce there is no need for any license, or indeed any license available to travel as it would be equivalent to requiring permission to engage in the lawful activity of travelling. Travelling is not defined.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

5. "State plates" on my car: Similarly, if I have "registered" my car with the "state" and carry the "state plates" on it, I have done so under duress only because to have any other "plates" or no "plates" at all, causes me to run the risk of "police officer" harassment, imprisonment and extreme inconvenience. As gasoline taxes pay for the highways, I have a free right to travel and cannot be charged a fee for something that I have already paid into.

6. The use of a "passport": There is no real need for me to have a "passport" (or other associated "permits," "visas," etc.) to travel. I have the right to travel without hindrance, wherever, however, and whenever I wish, so long as I do not encroach upon the private property of others. Though without a "passport,"
my right to travel is unduly hindered. Therefore, under duress, I only use a "passport" to prevent extreme inconvenience and to ensure that I can travel from one "country" to another at all.

7. Past "filing" of "tax returns": Because such "tax returns" were "filed" under threat, duress, and coercion, and no two-way contract was ever signed with full disclosure, there is nothing in any past "filing" of "tax returns" or payments that created any valid contract. Therefore, no obligation on my part was ever
created. "There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private
business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. 

 He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights
are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905). Brady v. U.S., 379 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970):

" Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947).

8. Past "enrolment" and "voting": Similarly, since no obligation to perform in any manner was ever revealed in print, as part of the "requirements" for the supposed "privilege" to "enroll" and "vote," any such "enrolment" or "voting" does not oblige me to do anything, nor grant any "jurisdiction" over me to anyone.

9. "Citizenship": Any document I may have ever signed, in which I answered "yes" to the question, "Are you a United States citizen?" - cannot be used to compromise my status as a sovereign, nor obligate me to perform in any manner. This is because without full written disclosure of the definition and consequences of such supposed "citizenship," provided in a document bearing my signature given freely without misrepresentation or coercion, there can be no binding contract.

I am not a United States citizen." I am not a "resident of," an "inhabitant of," a "franchise of," a "subject of," a "ward of," the "property of," the "chattel of," or "subject to the jurisdiction of" any "monarch" or any corporate "commonwealth," "federal," "state," "territory," "county," "council," "city," "municipal body politic," or other "government" allegedly "created" under the "authority" of a "constitution" or other "enactment." I am not subject to any "legislation," department, or agency created by such "authorities," nor to the "jurisdiction" of any employees, officers, or agents deriving their
"authority" therefrom. Nor do any of the "statutes" or "regulations" of such "authorities" apply to me or have any "jurisdiction" over me.

Further, I am not a subject of any "courts" or bound by "precedents" of any "courts," deriving their "jurisdiction" from said "authorities." Take notice that I hereby cancel and make void from the beginning any such "instrument" or any presumed "election" made by any "government" or any agency or department thereof, that I am or ever have voluntarily elected to be treated as a subject of any "monarch" or a United States citizen," or a "resident" of any "commonwealth," "state," "territory," "possession," "instrumentality," "enclave," "division," "district," or "province," subject to their "jurisdiction(s)."

10.Use of semantics: There are some immature people with mental imbalances, such as the craving to dominate other people, who masquerade as "government," and call the noises and scribbles that emanate from their mouths and pens "the law" which "must be obeyed." Just because they alter definitions of words in their "law" books to their supposed advantage, doesn’t mean I accept those definitions. The fact that they define the words "person," "address," "mail," "resident," "motor vehicle," "driving," "passenger," "employee," "income," and many others, in ways different from the common usage, so as to be associated with a subject or slave status, means nothing in real life.

Because the "courts" have become entangled in the game of semantics, be it known to all "courts" and all parties, that if I have ever signed any document or spoken any words on record, using words defined by twists in any "law" books different from the common usage, there can be no effect whatsoever on my sovereign status in society thereby, nor can there be created any "obligation" to
perform in any manner, by the mere use of such words. Where the definition in the common dictionary differs from the definition in the "law" dictionary, it is the definition in the common dictionary that prevails, because it is more trustworthy.

11.Such compelled and supposed "benefits" include, but are not limited to, the aforementioned typical examples. My use of such alleged "benefits" is under duress only, and is with full reservation of all my natural inherent rights. I have waived none of my intrinsic rights and freedoms by my use thereof. Furthermore, my use of such compelled "benefits" may be temporary, until alternatives become available, practical, and widely recognized.

12: My affidavit, unrefuted , stands as truth. "Court of appeals may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit. Where affidavits are directly conflicting on material points. It is not possible for the district judge to "weight" the affidavits in order to resolve disputed issues; except in those rare cases where the facts alleged in an affidavit are inherently incredible, and can be so characterized solely by a reading of the affidavit, the district judge has no basis for a determination of credibility." – Data Disc, INC v. System Tech Assocs., Inc 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)

"Moreover, Poole’s claim is sufficiently pleaded to satisfy the pleading requirements in Rule 32.3 and Rle 32.6(b), and his factual allegation were unrefuted by the state; therefore, they must be accepted as true." See Bates v. State, 620 So.2d 745. 746 (Ala.Crim.App 1992) (* When the States does not respond to a petitioners allegations, the refuted statement of facts must be taken as true.,

Quoting Smith v. State, 581 So.2d 1283, 1284 (Ala. Crim. App 1991). In addition, his claim is not precluded by any of the provisions of rule 32.2.5 because his claim is not barred, is sufficiently pleaded, and is unrefuted by the state, Poole is entitled to an opportunity to prove his claim.

12B: REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY

1.I hereby revoke, rescind, cancel, and make void from the beginning, all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, implied in "law" or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, as it pertains to any "tax file/identification number" and/or "social security number" assigned to me, as it pertains to my "birth certificate," and as it pertains to any and all other numbers, "licenses," "certificates," and other "instruments" issued by any and all "government" and quasi-"governmental" departments or agencies, due to the use of various elements of fraud by said agencies to attempt to deprive me of my sovereignty and/or property.

2.I hereby waive, cancel, repudiate, and refuse to knowingly accept any alleged "benefit" or "gratuity" associated with any of the aforementioned numbers, "licenses," "certificates," and other "instruments." My use of any such numbers, "licenses,"
"certificates," or other "instruments" has been for information purposes only, and does not grant any "jurisdiction" to anyone.

3.I do hereby revoke and rescind all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, signed by me or otherwise, implied in "law" or otherwise, with or without my consent or knowledge, as it pertains to any and all property, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, obtained in the past, present, or future. I am the sole and absolute owner and possess allodial title to any and all such property.

4.Take notice that I also revoke, cancel, and make void from the beginning all powers of attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, claiming to act on my behalf, with or without my consent, as such power of attorney pertains to me or any property owned by me, by, but not limited to, any and all quasi/colorable, public, "governmental" departments, agencies or corporations on the grounds of constructive fraud, concealment, and nondisclosure of pertinent facts.

5.I affirm that all of the foregoing is true and correct. I affirm that I am competent to make this Affidavit. I hereby affix my own signature to all of the affirmations in this entire document with explicit reservation of all my inalienable rights and my specific right not to be bound by any "contract" or "obligation" which I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, intentionally, and without misrepresentation, duress, or coercion.

The use of notary below is for identification only, and such use does not grant any "jurisdiction" to anyone.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.

Subscribed and sworn, without prejudice, and with all rights reserved,

(Printed Name:)________________________________.

Principal, by Special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris.

Signed:_______________________

Date:_________________________

On this ________day of______________, ______, before me, the undersigned, a

Notary Public in and for ________________________, personally appeared the above-signed, known to me to be the one whose name is signed on this instrument, and has acknowledged to me that she/he has executed the same.

Signed:___________________

Edited by Paw-Piper
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this

I had it years ago and had intended to print it out and get it notarized...

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't this been thoroughly discredited? The whole Freeman thing? I'm willing to stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lily,

Truth and facts can never be truly discredited. Naysayers can and will always make derogatory comments, but fail to offer any facts to the contrary.

An affidavit based on the knowledge of the affiant is accorded more weight than one based on information and belief.

You may be thinking of some fraudulent movement that takes advantage of ignorant or naive people. You can choose freedom or blindness. 

Need I elaborate further? Sincerely, Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please do elaborate, but only if you're going to provide facts instead of bluster. I haven't seen any successes with Sovereign Citizen/Freeman tactics. Over the years plenty of misery has been caused by thinking that merely getting a statement like this notarized affords protection from bothersome laws.

Honestly that document reads like the ramblings of a lunatic about to blow. I just hope that anyone attracted to this does some serious homework before deciding that they don't need to pay their taxes or mortgage any more, or that they can drive drunk because that particular statute doesn't apply to them.

A quick perusal of this easy to read link would, I hope, make anyone 'wet behind the ears' to this stuff reconsider venturing further into the rabbit hole. I would hate for any younger members especially to get caught up with this and find themselves in an unholy mess down the line.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen

And here's a report on Sovereign Citizens getting into hot water from March this year. 

http://www.andalusiastarnews.com/2015/03/18/jury-soverign-citizens-guilty/

Jury: ‘Sovereign’ citizens guilty​

[snip] A Covington County jury on Tuesday found two men guilty of eight counts of offering a false instrument for recording against a public servant.

Travis Lee Lambert of Andalusia and William Peter Witwicki of Enterprise filed suit against Coffee County Sheriff Dave Sutton, Circuit Judge Thomas Head, Circuit Clerk Mickey Counts and Circuit Judge Shannon Clark. Although their actions and language mirror those used in the sovereign citizen movement (see info box), each said he is not a member of the movement. [...snip]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lily,  i wont strive with your ignorance. You use wiki for a source. You use soveriegn and citizen together, which is a contradiction in terms. And, you fail to recognize 'legal' definitions of terms vs everyday language. Much less the documented case rulings all the way up to the SCOTUS. 

I assure you, this document has its purposes and has been successfuly used. My own cases are public record. I have 'won' several, and had several dismissals. And I havent had a state issued drivers license in years, and no longer get ticketed.

As I stated, you are confusing this with something else. And apparently you havent much clue as to how our court system or economic system really works. I am no longer a slave. I have never been a ward of the court through the use of an attorney. And if that document sounds like lunatical ramblings to you, you truly sound ignorant to me. And further engagement with you would be to no avail.

I dont know what false instrument was used in Covington County, if a case # were provided it could easily be verified.

With that being said, I challenge you to provide proof of one (1) just one falsity in this affidavit, or hold your peace.

I remain, Paul

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a start why don't you climb down off that high horse you're riding around on, then perhaps you can elaborate on the cases you've won, along with your experience at traffic stops. That kind of information could be helpful, if you deign to strive a little with ignorant folk.

In my first reply to you I said I was happy to stand corrected (since I stopped following this a couple of years ago), but you chose to preach instead. I don't take kindly to that.

My understanding is that this doesn't work and a lot of people have found that out the hard way. One case I recollect (don't ask me for the specifics, I don't remember them),had a young, single mother do jail time for a parking ticket when all was said and done.

I'm responding to you the way I am because I don't like to see people get hurt through ignorance. Supply your proof, I'll look at it with interest and I mean that, I'm not yanking your chain. 

And linking to a wiki isn't a problem if it quickly sums up the points.

I use Sovereign and Citizen together because that is the general term for this. Although once the absurdity of that pairing was pointed out "Sovereigns" switched to using Individual. 

I don't fail to recognize the difference between legal terms and common usage, I'm just not at all convinced that salvation lies in Blacks Law.

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lily,  i wont strive with your ignorance. You use wiki for a source. You use soveriegn and citizen together, which is a contradiction in terms. And, you fail to recognize 'legal' definitions of terms vs everyday language. Much less the documented case rulings all the way up to the SCOTUS. 

I assure you, this document has its purposes and has been successfuly used. My own cases are public record. I have 'won' several, and had several dismissals. And I havent had a state issued drivers license in years, and no longer get ticketed.

As I stated, you are confusing this with something else. And apparently you havent much clue as to how our court system or economic system really works. I am no longer a slave. I have never been a ward of the court through the use of an attorney. And if that document sounds like lunatical ramblings to you, you truly sound ignorant to me. And further engagement with you would be to no avail.

I dont know what false instrument was used in Covington County, if a case # were provided it could easily be verified.

With that being said, I challenge you to provide proof of one (1) just one falsity in this affidavit, or hold your peace.

I remain, Paul

 

You need to work on that "all knowing", part cryptic, arrogant and condescending tone you use in your posts. You have good info but the style in which you present to people could use some work (Maybe this was partly the issue for you amongst friends and family as you posited in another thread?).

We're a community which has been researching these topics for quite a while are pretty knowledgeable on most of the topics you've presented and have much further reaching debates about topics you're likely not even aware of. The point I'm making is not everyone is going to have all the information others do which is why we have the forum to begin with. This arena is designed for the presentation and dissemination of information. 

Let me make this clear to you... Do not speak down to ANY of this sites members or you might soon find yourself persecuted "amongst the flock" so to speak.

-1 rating as penance

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it that someone with no insightful input that I can find, have such a reputation, and is the only one who has felt the need to 'scold' me and give me 'penance'? 

'Butting in' on an exchange between two people is like grabbing a dog by the ears. 

Yeah, I'll change bc 'you' tell me what I need to do CS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it that someone with no insightful input that I can find, have such a reputation, and is the only one who has felt the need to 'scold' me and give me 'penance'? 

'Butting in' on an exchange between two people is like grabbing a dog by the ears. 

Yeah, I'll change bc 'you' tell me what I need to do CS. 

​Maybe I don't feel the need to flex my intelligence to a group of people I barely know and in turn berate or ridicule those that don't understand/agree with my position. Is your goal to make people feel stupid (calling them ignorant) for the sake of your own ego...? I've been on the circuit for a long time and have shared my insight with many over the years. What I get out of here or choose to contribute is my own choice and what I choose to share currently are my thoughts on how you're full of self importance, arrogant, rude and probably would cry every night to sleep if you didn't find others to put beneath you.

Does that even make any sense to you or does the narcissism you've already projected prevent you from any form of self criticism?

What you also fail to realize is this is an OPEN forum meaning I can voice my opinion about anything I read. There are no rules as to who I can talk to, when I can talk to them or even (for the most part) what I can say. There are no private exchanges on here you dumb fuck, so if you want to have a private conversation with someone I suggest you call your therapist.

I'll never tell you what to do, I'm only advising you as what to expect if you insist on being a degenerate.

Edited by ukshep
Image Removed By Staff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread certainly got derailed -

I would love to know of particular instances where having this affidavit was helpful, also examples where it resulted in less than positive results..

From what I understand, since we have been in a perpetual state of emergency for many years, they no longer feel constitutionally constrained for the most part - perhaps a case now and then for show, to give people the illusion that the constitution is somehow still in effect, so people stay calm and think everything is okay - what about all the "maritime law" stuff - that is a confusing topic for me I have to admit - the fringe around the flag, for example - and what about the US flag being very similar to that East Indian Company one - ???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.