/qpatriotresearch/ - Patriot Research

"Sins of the Father or Sins of the Fathers derives from biblical references primarily in the books Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers to the sins or iniquities of one generation passing to another....: The LORD is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation. ... : Deuteronomy Chapter 5. : You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them."

This verse is how things have been going on here in the US of A. Pretty much for three generations since 1912 creating of the Federal Reserve Banking Act.

The Perpetual sins of our fathers has been the downfall of their ignorance..of the rules of law for as I say my-our grandparents time.

There are three tiers of fiduciaries to most of us.

1st. is our parents..grandparents.. aunts and uncles

2nd. Is our educators..the school systems ... mostly..up to and through High School.

Thou..this also includes the clergy... our ministers.

3rd..are our elected government officials.

The thing is..the 3rd..controls the curriculum of 2nd..(schools).. so it's been a Perpetual dummy down of the 1st. Yet the 1st.. which most are from a age of having faith and trust in their government to which the government relies on their patriotism... many having gone through the Great Depression in the Second World War.

Are the 2nd school teacher at fault? probably not because they went through the same system has the rest and even from college liberal professors inducements.

But what about the 2nd..the Clergy (thosexyou trusylt the most) ? Should they not be held accountable for understanding and teaching their flocks the separate and equal Stations of the government and ourselves? Yes they should be. You don't think that the Founding fathers were tought from the pulpit aspects of law and government(s) over reaching?

What does the scripture say about the realtionship between the people and it's governments ?

Romans 13

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Ayn Rand. said it many years ago

"“The Constitution is a limitation of the government, not on private individualsthat it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the governmentthat it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens' protection against the government.

Instead of being a protector of man's rights, the government is becoming their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom, the government is establishing slavery; instead of protecting men from the initiators of physical force, the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases; instead of serving as the instrument of objectivity in human relationships, the government is creating a deadly, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of nonobjective laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats; instead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim--so that we are fast approaching the stage of ultimate inversion; the stage where the government is "free" to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may only act by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of humanity, the stage of rule by brute force.”

And there Q and Annon is the issue. Q ..it's not my fault.. It's this..

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.. An observation that a person's sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases."

Matt. 6:24

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t serve both God and Mammon.

And I say unto you, make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s,who shall give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Luke 16:9-13

We had-have to many people on the payroll that serve mammon.. It's their livelihood and will not give it up..in fear of losing everything. Either because the know or don't know the scheme...called Ponzy.

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, (slaves) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.” Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] - This is from the minutes of a meeting in the white house that included President Woodrow Wilson and his top adviser Colonel Edward Mandell House,

This is not conspiracy theory conjecture .. it's “self evident”. Need I say more ???

Q and annons..above is the issue and problem ..below is the law.

"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 submit his books and papers for an examination] 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 [Common Law] 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 (1906).

Stare decisis [Latin, Let the decision stand.] The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases.

I owe nothing to the public in whole..but to my neigbor.

The 9th bill if rights amendment says this..

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What are all these "others" right retained to the people..

"The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights." Source Cornell Law College

"The Federalists contended that a bill of rights was unnecessary. They responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that, inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights, it would be dangerous to list some and thereby lend support to the argument that government was unrestrained as to those rights not listed."

Is the right of marriage enumerated as a right? No..then way do people run to the States to pay for a license to be married?

What about your right to make a living..to provided for the necessities of life..the ability to travel in order to do this ? Some of these are so much a part the law of nature that it would even be called unavailable but imprescriptible.((of rights) unable to be taken away by prescription or by lapse of time:immune or exempt from prescription: prescription is licensed..granting written order to do something or the act of making such an order.

Q in post # 4794 the claim is it's about loyalty ...to a agency - organization ? What about the oath to something bigger ? I agree ..the number one culprit crux is the STATE demigod.

And again in Black and White.

In Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

Justice Wison makes a opinion>? On Sovereignty.

just after Page 2 U. S. 453

Wilson, Justice.

" This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to it is a State -- certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign. The question to be determined is whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others more important still, and, may, perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one no less radical than this: "do the people of the United States form a Nation?"...

To the Constitution of the United States, the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But even in that place, it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves "SOVEREIGN" people of the United States. But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.

Having thus avowed my disapprobation of the purposes for which the terms, state and sovereign are frequently used, and of the object to which the application of the last of them is almost universally made, it is now proper that I should disclose the meaning which I assign to both, and the application,

Page 2 U. S. 455

which I make of the latter. In doing this, I shall have occasion incidently to evince how true it is that states and governments were made for man, and, at the same time, how true it is that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their master and maker....(see Ayn Rand quote)

Man, fearfully and wonderfully made, is the workmanship of his all perfect Creator. A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man, and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. When I speak of a state as an inferior contrivance, I mean that it is a contrivance inferior only to that which is divine. Of all human contrivances, it is certainly most transcendantly excellent. It is concerning this contrivance that

Cicero says so sublimely,

"Nothing, which is exhibited upon our globe is more acceptable to that divinity which governs the whole universe than those communities and assemblages of men which, lawfully associated, are denominated states. [Footnote 1]"

Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people. But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former.

For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics, there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means.

As the state has claimed precedence of the people, so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the state, and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning sovereignty owe their existence. ..

By a "state," I mean a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit to enjoy peaceably what is their own and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests; it has its rules; it has its rights; and it has its obligations..... It may be bound by contracts, and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this

Page 2 U. S. 456

feigned and artificial person, we should never forget that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act are men.

Is the foregoing description of a state a true description? It will not be questioned but it is. Is there any part of this description, which intimates in the remotest manner that a state, any more than the men who compose it, ought not to do justice and fulfil engagements? It will not be pretended that there is. If justice is not done; if engagements are not fulfilled, is it, upon general principles of right, less proper in the case of a great number than in the case of an individual to secure by compulsion that which will not be voluntarily performed? Less proper it surely cannot be. The only reason, I believe, why a free man is bound by human laws is that he binds himself.".....

"When a change of government takes place, from a monarchical to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent" Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. (1796) 2 S.E. 70: Subjection to laws must be by consent]

What is fraud?

The 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.".

“There are certain exceptions to the general rule that misrepresentations involving a point of law or the legal effect of a document will not support an action for fraud. These exceptions embody a recognition that in certain circumstances a statement of opinion can rise to the level of fraud. A party having superior knowledge, who takes advantage of another's ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation, can be held responsible for this conduct.” FINA SUPPLY, INC., Petitioner, v. ABILENE NATIONAL BANK, Abilene, Texas n/k/a MBank Abilene, N.A., Respondents. 726 S.W.2d 537 (1987)

What did Edward Mandell House have to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President) ? Enslave the American people..via by whom? Agencies?

Our own Goverment agencies..State agencies ..like AG's ..distict Prosecutors.. County Sheriff's ..Judges?

I hope NSA is reading this.

Lastly.. and even more to the point..of enslavement and fraud perpetrated by State agencies.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:

The term "public highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads--any road which the public have a RIGHT to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. (Emphasis added). See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois ruled: Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the RIGHT to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this RIGHT might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. (Emphasis added). See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22...

"Regulated" here can only mean traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?

Citizen's RIGHT to travel upon public highways includes RIGHT to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. (Emphasis added). See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580.

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 RIGHT which he has under the RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added). See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

. . . [T]he streets and highways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516.

The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highways his place of business and uses it for private gain . . . . (Emphasis added). See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.

. . . [F]or while a Citizen has the RIGHT to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that RIGHT does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.... (Emphasis added). See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.

So there it says that the only reason for a license is for commercial activity on the public roads.. And here is were I'll connect the use of a SSN. in obtaining a drivers license..making the purpose of the SSN that of a commercial appication.. The DMV application for a drivers license require that of one's SSN even for a non-drivers ID.

Overview of the Privacy Act of 1974

https://www.justice.gov/opcl/social-security-number-usage

Section 7 of the Privacy Act (found at 5 U.S.C. § 552a note (Disclosure of Social Security Number)) provides that:

“It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number.” Sec. 7(a)(1).

Social Security Number Usage

Comment:

Note that although this provision applies beyond federal agencies, it does not apply to: (1) any disclosure which is required by federal statute; or (2) any disclosure of a social security number to any federal, state, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual. See Sec. 7(a)(2)(A)-(B).

Note also that the Tax Reform Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(i), (iv) (2006), expressly exempts state agencies from this restriction to the extent that social security numbers are used “in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver’s license, or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction.” See, e.g., Peterson v. City of Detroit, 76 F. App’x 601, 602 (6th Cir. 2003) (asserting that 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(i) “permits states to require disclosure of social security numbers in the administration of its driver’s license law[,] . . . § 7 of the Privacy Act, insofar as it relates to the ‘privilege’ at issue in this case [(denial of plaintiff’s application for taxicab license)], has been superseded”); Stoianoff v. Comm’r of the DMV, 12 F. App’x 33, 35 (2d Cir. 2001) (finding that plaintiff’s Privacy Act claim would fail because § 405(c)(2)(C)(i) “expressly authorizes states to require the disclosure of social security numbers in the administration of driver’s license programs” and further provides that “any federal law that conflicts with this section is ‘null, void, and of no effect’”); Peterson v. Michigan, No. 11-12153, slip op. at 4 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2011) (citing Peterson v. City of Detroit and stating that 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(i) “supersedes § 7 of the Privacy Act”); Claugus v. Roosevelt Island Hous. Mgmt. Corp., No. 96CIV8155, 1999 WL 258275, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 1999)

So there it is.. The obtaining that of a drivers license is to conduct commercial activity on the piblic roads...and the only way to obtain one is providing a SSN. making that Numbers a part of a commercial act...conducting in commerce...commercial activity.

Q..and annons..What more can I say.

That's it in a nut shell..who's to blame for the state that we are in today ?

President Trump..hats off to you.

Vee