..... Consent of the Governed, what does that mean?


August 21, 2003, 12:14 PM
KC posted part of the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America on my Constructive Notice thread. A brief quote of that declaration: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rigts, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. " What exactly does the consent of the governed mean? By what means have the people of this country given their 'consent'? I have done research about how this was given back in the early Colonial days, but how have you given your consent to be governed? Or have you?

The 'Declaration of Independence' was the 13 Colonies justification for declaring themselves no longer under the lawful authority of England. That being the case, and the statement that Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed how then is that consent obtained from each individual citizen? If consent has not been obtained from each individual citizen then are those citizens that have not consented being lawfully governed? Would that government's power then be 'unjust'? Do these words have any meaning at all in the united States of America today? What do they mean to you?

I personally believe that this is the starting point of any discussion about liberty/freedom. What constitutes lawful authority? If authority is not lawful, then what is it? Can you be lawfully compelled, against your consent to be governed? Where exactly does government derive its just powers?

I'm posting this thread to begin a discussion about the substance of lawful authority, not to scare anyone, not to intimidate anyone, not to advocate illegal flouting of laws, just to have an honest to god discussion about the fundamental principles of lawful authority.

If you enjoyed reading about "..... Consent of the Governed, what does that mean?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
August 21, 2003, 03:47 PM
Hmmmm. Interesting question.

Gotto be cafeful with you. You are a good outside the box thinker... I gave consent when I occupied land that I knew was regulated by the Constitution of the United States. Hmmmm... Not sure I buy my own argument... That implies that the government has first rights to "your" land, which they seem to prove by siezing it when they want it or you fail to pay taxes on it. Hmmmmm.....

Have you thought of any good counterpoints that could be made against your own position suji?

August 21, 2003, 04:05 PM
Digital Warrior,

Really it's not a trick question, I'm going to go somewhere with this, I just want to see if anyone else has given this any thought. I've actually done a good bit of research on 'entering into society', 'becoming a member of the body politic', 'man in the state of nature', 'natural law', 'natural rights'. Spoken to a number of law professors at the Notre Dame Law School as well as other law schools, spent quite a few hours at the Notre Dame Law Library, Cooley (sp) Law Library in Lansing, Michigan and have a number of books in my own library on this and related subjects. Have you ever heard of the 'Oath of a Freeman' dating back to the early Colonial period of this country? I'll be posting it on this thread, it's rather enlightening!

Oh, I might add, there is explicit consent and implied consent.

August 21, 2003, 05:03 PM
There isn't anything that I would consider a trick question, just ones which illuminates the truth and others that are not clearly stated. Yours is clearly stated.

I had not heard of the oath. Does that oath have modern legal bearing or is it useful only to provide context (like the federalist papers)?

Standing Wolf
August 21, 2003, 05:16 PM
...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

Tends to mean, "It's okay as long as they don't throw us out of office, and even then, if we've got the right friends, we can probably get away with it." I'm thinking of that Torricelli creature at the moment, as well as Red Davis.

Seriously: I have a hunch failing to leave constitutes consent.

August 21, 2003, 05:21 PM
It's a concept espoused by John Locke, in opposition to the divine right of kings that those who govern must have the consent of the governed. Now, as to what EVIDENCE that we personally have given or not given our consent, that I can't tell you.

August 21, 2003, 08:34 PM
OK, here's the Oath of a Freeman that I said I would post.

The following is a rewording from the Old English of the 1600's to modern day English taken from an article entitled "Sui Juris - Pardon me but," by Nord Davis, Jr.: "The Oath of a Freeman , I being by God's providence an Inhabitant, and Freeman, within the jurisdiction of this commonwealth, do freely acknowledge myself to be subject to the government thereof; and therefore do here swear, by the great & dreadful name of the Everliving God, that I will be true & faithful to the same, & will accordingly yield assistance & support thereunto, with my person & estate, as in equity I am bound ; and will also truely endeavor to maintain and preserve all the liberties & priviledges thereof; submitting myself to the wholesome laws & orders made & established by the same; and further, that I will not plot, nor practice any evil against it, nor consent to any that shall so do, but will timely discover, & reveal the same to lawful authority now here established, for the speedy preventing thereof. Moreover, I do solemnly bind myself, in the sight of God, that when I shall be called, to give my voice touching any such matter of this state, in which freemen are to deal I will give my vote & suffrage as I shall judge in my own conscience may best conduce & tend to the public well of the body, without respect of persons, or favor of any man. So help me God in the Lord Jesus Christ."

According to Nord Davis, Jr. this document was the first printed document in the Colonies. Others had been hand copied, but this was the first to be printed.

So what was this document?

August 22, 2003, 12:43 AM
All - I do not want to critisize these beliefs (yesido, yesido, yesido, butiwillnot), or at least this is not the place for such critisism. Nord Davis, Jr for those who do not know (I was one) is the founder of the Christian Identity movement. I will not comment about the merits or failings of this movement, I do think that you should be aware of a possible bias before accepting a man's analysis.

Placing the person who did the re-wording aside, this is an example of an explicit consent. I have signed similar documents (military service).

What about implicit consent.

August 22, 2003, 01:22 AM

I'll have to check out your statement about Nord Davis, Jr. I am not now, nor have I ever been a 'follower' of Nord Davis Jr.! If he was in fact the founder of the 'Christian Idenity Movement', then I'd say he had some serious problems! I am not a racist, never have been, don't believe in that ka, ka! This 'Oath of a Freeman' wasn't something that he had written, it just was in one of his articles about the IRS. I've seen this document other places, the copy that I saw was in Old English, I reworded it into present day English myself, just had to change f's to s's, etc. Another good book to read about early documents is, Documents Illustrative of American History 1606-1863 by Howard W. Preston written in 1886, this book shows early Colonial compacts, etc.

You are correct, this 'Oath of a Freeman' was indeed explicit consent. Apparently this oath had to be taken by any and all adult males in order to 'enter into society', 'become a member of the body politic' during the early Colonial period.

I just went digging through some of my stuff, but couldn't find that article written by Nord Davis, Jr. The Oath of a Freeman was the cover page for that article, as I said it was not written by him. This Nord Davis, Jr. was affiliated with 'North Pointe Teams', I believe that it was some kind of covert government operations setup. I'll have to check this out.

August 22, 2003, 01:58 AM

Just did a google search under the phrase, "The Oath of a Freeman", I found quite a few different copies of such oaths. The one I posted was printed in Cambridge , Massachusetts in 1638, it was listed as #7 on my CompuServe google search. So as I said it's not bogus, the 'Oath of a Freeman' dates clear back to the early 1600's, our early Colonial period.

August 22, 2003, 08:42 AM
Here's more information on the 'Oath of a Freeman'. The first one I'm posting shows that this document lays the foundation of our current day 'citizenship'.

"The 'Oath of a Freeman', according to the Library of Congress, was required of all new members of the Massachusetts Bay Company. They had to pledge their obedience to the compnay's government, 'making this the foundation of our country's understanding of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.'"

Frequent reference is made in the early history of New England to being made a freeman. This was a significant accomplishment, since only a 'freeman' was allowed to vote. The opportunity was not offered to everyone. General requirements included being an adult male and church member. One must also have experienced a spiritual transformation, confirmed by church leaders. After qualifying, the candidate was then required to take this oath. A number of qualifying church members would not take the oath because they had problems with the wording. Others, such as those who later became Quakers, objected strongly to oaths in general. In 1634 the oath was shortened and modified to replace the persons of the Governor and other officers owed obedience with the more generic 'common weale.'"

In March 1638, Newport, Rhode Island, Thomas Emons took the oath of a Freeman. To become a Freeman a person was legally required to be a respectable member of some congregational church. In early colonial America, requirements to vote and hold public office included owning land and being declared 'free' from bondage.

"The existence of the 'Oath of a Freeman' was noted in 1647 by John Winthrop, the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who recorded in his diary that it was the 'first thing' printed by Mr. Daye eight or nine years earlier. No other copy has ever emerged ...."

Requirements to be a freeman: 1. Oath of fidelity to the King. 2. Male age 21, not indentured or bonded. 3. Member in good standing in the Church 4. Property owner.

August 22, 2003, 09:45 AM
I think I understand where you are going...

1. A government derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed.
2. The consent of the governed used to be given in an express form. Perhaps it could be said that the consent of the governed must be given in express form, because of the complexity of such consent.
3. If a man does not give his consent to be governed, then he has not granted the government it's power over him.

A couple of thoughts on that line of reasoning.
I being by God's providence an Inhabitant, and Freeman, within the jurisdiction of this commonwealth, do freely acknowledge myself to be subject to the government thereof;
Reads to me like "The government of the commonwealth has jurisdiction where I live, so I promise a whole lot of stuff."

The government has jurisdiction, whether or not I live there. If I do not acknowledge myself to be subject to the government, then the government, which has jurisdiction, may make me cease to be an inhabitant (toss me out on my posterior).

This document looks like the most harmful contract I have ever seen. Those check cashing places with a 1472% interest rate are more fair.

Do you see what I am saying?

August 22, 2003, 09:56 AM

I'm not saying that the 'Oath of a Freeman' was a good thing! I'm trying to point out how things were done in the early Colonial period of this country. I mean after all some of the general 'requirements' included being an adult male, church member in good standing, must have experienced a spiritual transformation (confirmed by church leaders no less) and then if you qualified you were 'required' to take the oath! Good god, did they check you for rabies too?!

What I'm trying to point out is, "The Oath of a Freeman, according to the Library of Congress, was required of all new members of the Massachusetts Bay Company. They had to pledge their obedience to the company's government, 'making this the foundation of our country's understanding of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.'

If you read John Locke's 2nd Treatise of Government, quoting from 'Of the beginning of political societies', "Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way wereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest."

If you haven't read the writings of John Locke, you might want to pick up the book, 'The Spark of Independence' published by the History Book Club, excerpts from his Second Treatise of Government are included in this book.

Another good book, 'The Lysander Spooner Reader' by Lysander Spooner, quoting from page viii, "If government requires the consent of the governed, then a legitimate government must acquire the explicit consent of every person in its jurisdiction." Page xiii, "According to Spooner, law, in its most basic sense, refers to natural law - 'that natural, universal, impartial and inflexible principle, which, under all circumstances, necessarily fixes, determines, defines and governs the civil rights of men.' All men are endowed with equal rights to life, liberty, and property. This is 'the paramount law'; indeed, strictly speaking, there can be 'no law but natural law,' because no human enactments can overturn the provisions of natural justice. Legitimate governments must rest on consent, a social contract, and even that contract 'cannot lawfully authorize government to destroy or take from men their natural rights; for natural rights are inalienable, and can no more be surrendered to government - which is but an association of individuals - than to a single individual.' The only 'legitimate and true object of government' is to protect natural rights. Even a majority, however large, cannot agree to a contract (a constitution) that violates 'the natural rights of any person or persons whatsoever.' Such a contract 'is unlawful and void' and has 'no moral sanction.'

Page xvi, "Spooner was adamant in his belief that the right forcibly to resist unjust laws is inalienable. The constant frear of an uprising by the people is the only thing that keeps rulers from becoming tyrannical. As Spooner put it: The right and the physical power of the people to resist unjustice, are really the only securities that any people ever can have for their liberties. Practically no government knows any limit to its power but the endurance of the people. And our government is no exception to the rule. But that the people are stronger than the government, our representatives would do any thing but lay down their power at the end of two years. And so of the president and senate. Nothing but the strength of the people, and a knowledge that they will forcibly resist any very gross transgression of the authority granted to their representatives, deters these representatives from enriching themselves, and perpetuating their power, by plundering and enslaving the people.'

Page xvii, "The whole Revolution (American) turned upon, asserted, and, in theory established, the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government under which he lived. And this principle was asserted, not as a right peculiar to themselves, or to that time, or as applicable only to the government then existing; but as a natural right of all men, at all times, and under all circumstances.'

August 22, 2003, 12:30 PM
Punched in 'The Christian Indentity Movement' on google search and came up with one of many sites:

Apparently today's Christian Identity Movement had its beginnings back in 1915, when the KKK was reorganized by Wiliam Simmons. I see Wesley Swift's name from the 1940's, William Potter Gale's name from the 1950's and 60's, but didn't see anything about Nord Davis, Jr. in there. I found that article he wrote, "Sui Juris, Pardon me , but ... #5 and like I said last night, the "Oath of a Freeman" was the front cover of that article, he had nothing to do with writing it or rewording it. I think that he's dead now, he had something called Northpoint Teams, PO Box 129, Topton, North Carolina 28781.

If you can show me information otherwise, please let me know.

August 22, 2003, 02:11 PM



ballistic gelatin
August 22, 2003, 02:20 PM
A lack of consent would be expressed through impeachment. Or a recall. Or a JFK scenario.

August 22, 2003, 04:59 PM
Hey, thanks for the information on Nord Davis, Jr., looks like you were right about him and Christian Identity! But like I posted before I'm not a follower of Nord Davis, Jr. and never was, I just happened to have an article by him titled, 'Sui Juris, Pardon me but ...' The 'Oath of a Freeman' was on the front cover, he didn't write it or reword it, it was just on there. I've learned something new about Nord Davis, Jr. today, thanks! 'The Oath of a Freeman' was a document used in early Colonial America long before Nord Davis, Jr. was even a twinkle in his great, great, great grandparents eye! Like I said I do not subscribe to racial hatred ka, ka!

August 22, 2003, 05:20 PM
ballistic gelatin,
I have never registered to vote, never voted, never 'entered into society', 'never became a member of the body politic' and therefore never consented to be governed. Any implied consent that my have been assumed by any government agency was cancelled on June 4, 1993 in a 13 page document that I filed as a matter of public record, Liber 681, pages 401-13 with the Hillsdale County Registor of Deeds, Hillsdale, Michigan titled 'Notice of Rescission of Contracts and Revocation of Signatures' . I absolutely do not advocate violence in any form against the government of Kentucky, any other State, or the united States of America! However I do reserve my natural right of self-defense against any and all who would attempt to harm me or my property! Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, I never gave my explicit consent to be governed!

I will continue to live my life as a free Human Being, exercising my natural, absolute, inherent and inalienable rights, as long as I do not harm another living Human Being, their rights or property I am committing absolutely no crime whatsoever!

August 22, 2003, 06:28 PM
I never gave my explicit consent to be governed!

Do you work? Make any kind of purchases? Have a mortgage or car note? Whether or not you give explicit consent is moot. As Standing Wolf said, "failing to leave constitutes consent." Unless you're living out in BFwhatever, making everything you need, totally on your own, you are being governed.

August 22, 2003, 08:46 PM
You posted, "Do you work? Make any kind of purchases? Have a mortgage or car note? Whether or not you give explicit consent is moot. As Standing Wolf said, 'failing to leave constitutes consent.' Unless you're living out in BFwhatever, making everything you need, totally on your own, you are being governed."

I don't have a 'mortgage' on my 20 acres or my cardboard yurt, by the way I've read that the word 'mortgage' comes from the Latin meaning death pledge! . I don't think I'd want to make one of those! I don't have a car or truck, just a mountain bicycle and recumbent tricycle, so no I don't have a 'car note'. I closed all my bank accounts back in 1993, haven't done business with those crooks since! Fractional reserve banking is fraud, the money system in this country today is fraud, I try hard not to participate in any involving fraud! I'm not sure what working or buying anything has to do my giving explicit consent, perhaps you could clarify. I'm afraid Dannyboy I'll have to take exception to your statement , "Whether or not you give explicit consent is moot." When I look up the word 'moot' in my dictionary I see the definition, "To debate, to discuss, debatable, subject to discussion." I think I would know if I had given my explicit consent so I'm not sure where the debate or discussion would come into play.

I think what Standing Wolf posted was, "Seriously: I have a hunch failing to leave constitutes consent." If Standing Wolf thinks that explicit consent possibly means "failing to leave" then that's OK for Standing Wolf and I'm sure others may have there own definition of explicit consent, but what is the definition of consent as used in the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America? Let's substitute that definition for the word consent and see how it sounds, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the failure to leave by the governed." I personally don't think that's what consent meant in this instance. When I look up the word 'consent' in Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 402 I see, "A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith. Agreement; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Consent in an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing as in a balance the good or evil on each side. It means voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mentality to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another." Then I see, Express Consent, "That directly given, either viva voice or in writing." Implied Consent, "That manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given."
What did the writer(s) of the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America mean when they stated, "..... from the consent of the governed "? This is why I've done research to actually discover what processes were used to establish lawful government authority back in the early 1600's (early Colonial period of this country) here in America. If those words have any meaning whatsoever then I think it's important to understand what the intent of the writer(s) actually was. To me, this fundamental principle is the foundation upon which the government of this country rests. Is the government of this country today de jure (lawful) or is it de facto ( illegal or unlawful)? Since the 'Declaration of Indepedence' was the 13 Colonies justification for claiming that they were no longer under the lawful authority of England, then what was it that made this 'new government' just or lawful?

August 22, 2003, 10:45 PM
Moot also means "of no practical importance; irrelevant." This goes back to your statement, "I never gave my explicit consent to be governed!" It's irrelevant. As far as having a job, if you work you pay taxes. If you buy anything you pay tax on it. Do you pay property taxes on those '20 acres'?Who collects these taxes? The government. And yes, I know that sales and property taxes are state/local as opposed to federal taxes but to be governed by one is to be governed by the other. If you want to believe that you're not being governed, that you're getting over on the government, you go right ahead.

August 23, 2003, 08:35 AM
This thread came to mind when I ran across a passage in a book I'm currently reading. The book is "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation." Excellent discussion of a selection of key moments in the early history of the United States and how they affected the future of the country.

Anyway, in a discussion of Jefferson and his doubts about the wisdom of the powers being granted to the federal government, there was this line:

Jefferson had also shared with Madison his intriguingly utopian suggestion that each generation was sovereign, so that the laws made for one generation should expire after about twenty years.

There is, unfortunately, no in-depth analysis of this notion -- but the concept is intriguing, to say the least.

Under Jefferson's vision, every law would have a built-in sunset provision. I have trouble envisioning how that would work, but there's something very appealing about this concept.

August 23, 2003, 09:54 AM
Yes I knew that 'moot' also means 'of no practical importance; irrelevant.' But your using that definition makes me take exception to your statement even more! The fact is that the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America states that, " ...... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." "The Declaration of Independence' lies at the very foundation of this country, if those words have any meaning whatsoever, then they can not be 'of no practical importance; irrelevant.' I said that I never gave my explicit consent and that I revoked any implied consent on June 4, 1993, not that government doesn't attempt to 'govern' me. I will not engage you on your assumption that 'if you work, you pay taxes, that is not the topic of this thread. If I purchase an item, it is with the understanding that there is a State sales tax added onto the price. And since I don't announce verbally or hand the clerk written notice that I'm agreeing to pay the sales tax, it would be implied consent that I've agreed to pay the sales tax. An interesting side note though, I've had this conversation with several merchants before, under the 'law' it's the merchant who is liable to pay the sales tax, not the customer - check it out for yourself - the merchant merely passes the sales tax on to the customer. Yes I pay property taxes on my 20 acres, they are only $63 a year! But I don't pay them because I'm forced to, I pay them for services rendered, I use the county roads in Monroe County, Kentucky and the public library, these are both paid for with property tax monies. I'm not a parasite, I don't have a problem paying for something that I use. By the way my 20 acres is paid for, I never registered my property with the County Clerk's Office (since 1993 I don't 'register' anything of mine with any government agency!) and as I told the PVA (tax assessor) man I'll continue to pay my property taxes as long as I receive equal value in services rendered. If that is no longer the case I cease paying property taxes to Monroe County! What I done since 1993 is limit, I mean really limit how much I'm being governed. I don't think I've made the statement that I'm not being governed at all, just that I've never given my explicit consent to be governed and that I've limited the extent of being governed. You see since 1993 I don't 'jump through all the hoops' that most people do everyday, the first thing I did was drop out of the system, closed all bank accounts, began living a more simplified lifestyle, became more self-reliant and have absolutely refused to allow any government agent or agency to violate my natural, inherent and inalienable rights.

For the past 10 years I've tried to live my life as a free Human Being, in accordance with the principles that this country was founded on. This country was not founded on 'no government', just limited government. The people who founded this country delegated a limited portion of their sovereign power to form a 'civil society' (ie government) through an instrument called a Constitution, the key phrase here is 'limited portion of their sovereign power'! Obviously they agreed, gave their consent to be governed, but the limits of the lawful authority of that government were also clearly defined in the Bill of Rights and/or Constitution! The Bill of Rights was the people's prior reservation of rights, these were off limits to their government. Look at Kentucky's Bill of Rights, Section 1: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned ....... Section 2: Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority. Section 26: To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare the every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution shall be void."

My point in posting this thread was to address the issue of consent, have the people of this country actually given their expressed, explicit consent to be governed? If they have then exactly what have they consented to, what are the terms and conditions of that consent? Did the people consent to limited government or did they consent to absolute and arbitrary government control? Look at what Alabama's Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 35 states, "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." Samuel Adams felt that it was a wicked and unnatural thing to allow those great fruits of liberty to languish by nelgect or apathy. "It is the greatest absuridity to suppose it would be in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society , to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which are life, liberty and property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake , should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." Quoted in Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, 1:504.

Do the fundamental principles which the government of this country were founded on have any meaning whatsoever to us today? How can we reclaim our freedom/liberty if we do not fully understand what those principles actually were, what they meant in 1775? Dannyboy, did you give your consent to be governed? I'm talking about actual, expressed, explicit consent as defined by Black's Law Dicitionary?

August 23, 2003, 06:01 PM
Hey, I found that book, 'Founding Brothers' on abe.com for $4.95, I'll be sending for it real soon! Thanks for posting the information! I like your little ditty at the bottom of your posts, how true, how true! Consent, it's all about consent! :banghead:

Hey, I kinda like this bold thing now I'm whispering now I'm yelling now I'm shouting! and that's a no, no!:) :p :o :D :evil: :banghead:

Imagine that! Winston Ward Johnson, a Freeman, Sui Juris doing the bold thing! :evil:

August 23, 2003, 08:03 PM
suijurisfreeman, if you like that quote in my sig, you'll love the whole essay (http://www.presenceofmind.net/GSW/Steak.html).

August 23, 2003, 08:20 PM
Just read the whole essay, great read!! Like I said, how true, how true! Consent, it's all about consent!! The people of this country have feed that cute little baby shark called 'government' until today it's a 30' Great White, and believe you me, it's coming back for everything they've got! Once government gets a taste of power, once they've crossed that first line in the sand, once they violated even the 'smallest' inherent and inalienable right there's absolutely no limit to the abuse of that power! Government must be bound by the chains of the Constitution! That's why the Bill of Rights was placed in the Constitution, it's the people's prior reservation of their inherent and inalienable rights!

A. Partisan
August 23, 2003, 10:49 PM
Interesting ideas here. I think the Government needs to be reigned in. Who's going to do it ? They(the Gov)are judge, jury, and executioner, you can't win. What if you feel you aren't getting equal value in services rendered ? Are you going to quit paying your real estate taxes? I'd be willing to bet you'll lose your land. Back in the late seventies I knew a guy that was in a income tax revolt group. The group had regular meetings and accumulated a ton of paperwork saying this was illegal for the Gov to do and that was illegal for the Gov to do. They were convinced they didn't have to pay income tax. My friend didn't pay income tax for five years. On the sixth year the Gov came after him. He took all his paperwork to court with him, didn't do any good. He spent eighteen months in federal prison,received a large fine, was ordered to pay the income tax plus penalties and interest. Down through the years I lost contact with him so I don't know if he ever paid any of the money to them and I think the group disbanded. All I know is when some one bumps heads with the Gov they are labeled a kook,a radical,a commie,a nazi,a racist, or religous nut, and if they bump too hard and too often they end up in prison or dead. I am sick and tired of my freedoms being chipped away everyday. I ain't ready to go to prison to stop the BS. Die...........maybe. Definitely no prison.

A. Partisan
August 23, 2003, 11:22 PM
My previous post is my longest to date. I have a hard time getting my thoughts to come out of the ends of my fingers. In the future if I can't say it in 1 or 2 sentences I may not post (not that anybody gives a ????). Anyway........................ I forgot to ask you if your freedom has been put to any tests? Thanks

August 23, 2003, 11:32 PM
A. Partisan,
I absolutely am not part of any 'income tax revolt group' as a matter of fact I'm not part of any group! I'm not advocating that anyone here that has a tax liability should avoid paying it, if you have a tax liability you absolutely pay every penny that you owe! I'm not advocating that anyone here attempt to do what I have successfully done for 10 years now! There could possibly be serious consequences, including going to prison! 'They' tried to get me on felony charges twice, but because I had the right information at hand, I was able to legally prevent it from happening! But you've got to know what you're doing, I have walked the tightrope of freedom since 1993 and knock on wood nothing bad has happened to me yet! But tomorrow's always another day! I may very well have come across a 'radical' since I started posting here a couple of days ago, but I really have done my research, I do have some idea as to what I talking about! I've actually lived what I'm posting about, I've got court transcripts, tape recordings, witnesses, TV footage (yes I've been on TV with my antics) , newspaper articles (yes I've made the front pages of numerous newspapers) to prove absolutely everything that I've posted on this forum! My only point is, you can legally 'fight city hall' and win! This is the American way! This is the substance of freedom! This is the substance of justice! My mind and my knowledge has been my only 'weapon' in my quest to be free, isn't freedom what America is all about?

August 23, 2003, 11:54 PM
A. Partisan,
What you have to say is just as important as anyone else! I've got alot on my mind when it comes to freedom, I'm not afraid to say it and I can type pretty damn fast, so whalla here it is! It has not been my intention to offend anyone on this forum, I really do appreciate the fact that Preacherman didn't boot me on the first day, but if I have to go, well then so be it - I hope not, but I'm not calling the shots here. We are at a crossroads in this country today, either this generation will now take a stand for the principles that founded this country, those principles that so many others have fought and died for or this great American experiment called a limited Constutitional Repbulic is doomed! It's going down the tubes folks, your grandchildren will never see the bright light of freedom if we don't preserve what 's left of our liberty now! I have tried to live by the principles that this country was founded on 228 years ago, yes it may seem radical to some of you, maybe even to all of you, but how did the people of 1775 perceive the likes of Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, James Otis, etc? Don't misunderstand I'm not even close to being in those men's league, but they also were considered 'radical' in 1775 by many if not most of the American Colonists. This is a struggle to preserve something that this world has probably never seen before in its entire recorded history, a government established by the consent of the people through their Bill of Rights and Constitution whose purpose was to preserve and protect their inherent and inalienable rights! Think about that, think about a world where liberty has ceased to exist, then commit yourself to preserve that liberty before it's too late!

A. Partisan
August 24, 2003, 01:01 AM
I do not think you are in any kind of group. My friends ordeal was brought up as an example of what can happen when people fight the Government. I appreciate you courteous replies. You have my respect. Your threads will be a definite read.

If you enjoyed reading about "..... Consent of the Governed, what does that mean?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!