/qpatriotresearch/ - Patriot Research

Thirteenth Amendment, amendment (1865) to the Constitution of the United States that formally abolished slavery.

The full text of the amendment is:

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.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

“[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 ???

Revelation 13:17 King James Version (KJV)

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (this number is the Social Security Number of a juristic entity – name , Registrar with the Secretary of the State as [first name ] [middle initial] [ Last ] were a natural born is by a Christian appellation way, first given name, second honorary name, and last family name )

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Section 703(a)(1), Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)(1) makes it unlawful to discriminate against any employee or perspective employee on the bases of his or her religion. (This is in addition to the basic Constitutional First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion.)

In 1992 a complaint was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) by a Mr. Hanson, wherein he claimed as a "Christian Fundamentalist" he could not obtain or use a SSN. The EEOC filed suit against the business that fired Mr. Hanson on his behalf. The suit claimed that firing Mr. Hanson due to his not having or getting a SSN constituted discrimination due to his religious belief. The business claimed that they were required to either force Mr. Hanson to get a SSN or fire him because they were required by certain IRS Code sections and regulations to report all employees' SSNs on certain IRS forms. The business also responded that it was required by federal law to report all employees' SSNs to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

The EEOC countered that the only requirement imposed upon a businesses by the various tax laws was that employers must "request" an employee's or potential employee's taxpayer identification number, and that there was be no penalty for a business not succeeding in obtaining one. The EEOC, itself a federal government agency, stated in its "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" that:

"the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the code do not contain an absolute requirement that an employer provide an employee social security number to the IRS."

The EEOC further argued that employers were permitted to use any one of several acceptable forms of identification and employment eligibility verification other than a SSN and still comply with the Immigration Reform Act requirements.

The Court denied the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint. A settlement was later reached in which Mr. Hanson was awarded back pay. The Court's final decree setting out the terms of the settlement stated that: "The [employer] shall be permanently enjoined from terminating an employee for failure to provide a social security number because of religious beliefs."

A sincerely held religious belief may serve as a valid basis for objecting to requirements for a social security number for employment purposes. A business could be found guilty of discrimination for taking adverse action against an employee or applicant due to their refusal to use or obtain a SSN

Most importantly.

Section 7(a)(1) of Public Law 93- 579, entered at 88 Statutes At Large (which is the standing law)

1896, 1909 (12/31 / 1974), codified at 5 USC 552a in the Notes, states 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.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, pp. 57 & 58, “Agency. Relation in which one person (like a corporation DMV and Banks) acts for or represents another (like the gov’t) by latter’s authority, either in the relationship of principal and agent, master and servant, or employer or proprietor and independent contractor . . .” (Cases omitted; parenthesis added.)

Title 42 USC., Section 1983 is titled,

“Civil action for deprivation of rights.” It states:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage (‘under color’ means a deceptive appearance vs. that which is real—like “demand” v. “request”), of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges (is using a bank a right or privilege? Is getting a non-driver-identification ID card from the DMV-STATE a right or privilege? ), or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.” (my comments and emphasis added)..

“Agency is the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person (the gov’t) to another (the corporation) that the other (the corporation) shall act on his (the gov’ts) behalf and subject to his (the gov’t) control, and consent by the other (the corporation) so to act.” Restatement, Second, Agency Section 1. (What does American Jurisprudence or Corpus Juris Secondum state about agencies? ) (Parenthesis added.) Do you know any corporations with a fiduciary relation? County, City, State, Sheriffs, Police, DMV ?...

What is-are Civil Rights ? The term civil rights refers to the basic rights afforded, by laws of the government, to every person, regardless of race, nationality, color, gender, age, religion, or disability. This refers to such rights as equal citizenship, equal protection under the law, and due process.

Definition of Civil Rights

The rights to full legal, economic, and social equality, regardless of race, nationality, color, gender, age, religion, or disability.

The non-political rights of a person, especially the personal liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

What are Civil Rights

Americans define civil rights by what they know about the founding of the nation, gleaning their understanding from words in the Declaration of Independence, which provides that, to secure man’s right to the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,

"governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Those unalienable rights, meaning those which cannot be dictated by government, but are rights as a matter of birth, are considered to be “civil liberties.” Civil rights, then are actions taken by government in an attempt to safeguard civil liberties. For instance, the freedom to express oneself, freedom to worship according to one’s own conscience, and the right to protect oneself are civil liberties – rights that are, or should be, held by every person.

The constitutional guarantees of these liberties, and attached prohibitions against government censoring or barring speech or other expression, creation of a government-sponsored religion, or banning of ownership of self-defense weapons, are “civil rights.”

Civil Liberties ; Civil liberties are freedoms due every individual, just based on the fact that they are human beings.

Definition of Civil Liberties

1.Personal freedoms that cannot be taken away or reduced by the government without due process.

2.The right to do or say things that are not illegal without being obstructed by the government.

Many people around the globe hold the belief that every person bears certain rights and freedoms, as granted by God, or simply by virtue of being human. Civil liberties means having freedom from arbitrary interference in one’s pursuits, such as freedom of expression, freedom to practice religion, or freedom to earn a living. In the U.S., these personal freedoms cannot be taken away or diminished by the government without due process of law.

Examples of civil liberties include: Freedom of expression, Freedom of assembly, Freedom of press, Freedom of religion, Freedom of conscience religion or other wise, Right to liberty and security Freedom from torture, Freedom from forced disappearance, Right to privacy, Right to equal treatment under the law, Right to due process, Right to a fair trial, Right to life, Right to marry, Right to vote, Certainly this list is not exhaustive, as other liberties present themselves, such as having a right to defend oneself, or to own property

The Ninth (9th.) Amendment Bill of Rights to the Constitution says . “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” There are to many to try to enumerate and so not to list them in fear that one was not enumerated, like your right to proved for the necessities of life being work-job-employment, for a shelter, food, cloths, heat, transportation to go about ones daily private activity in ones private property unencumbered by a license of any sort , license plate on ones private conveyance or drivers license restricting these rights, except by due process of law.

One last thing to support and raise avidity to my resolve and complaint is

42 USC 408(a)(8) which states in the pertinent part:

“Whoever . . . compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”

You may ask and should ... why … why am I so resistant to follow the “presumed” rule that everyone else adheres to ? I say the rules that most people don’t know they don’t have to do or be comply to. Because it is against the rule of law. That The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article 1, section 10, clause 1. The clause prohibits a State form Passing any law that “impairs the obligation of contracts” or “makes anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt”.

The mirror to this clause is if the State can not impair that of a contract … it most certainly can not force or compel any of We the People to enter into one. Getting a Social Security Number is a volatility act .. No law requires one .. no law can compel anyone to retain / obtain and SSN AND even if one does have one.. it's still voluntary to have to use it ..form the Social Security Administration “Report of Confidential SS Benefit Information.”

I am being harmed by the complacency and ignorance of society.. buying into the narrative of something that they're presumed to have to do.

The Code of Federal Regulations do not comprise the law. They merely contain the rules that regulate the executive branch of government.

This serves to give notice for making notice.

Notice to agent(s) is notice to principle.

"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]

Everything is by consent. Go to DMV presuming you had to was by consent.

Getting a marriage license was presumed you had to was by consent.

Having a social security number or handy one over to have a job..to provide for the necessities of life was also voluntary and by consent.

When you are charged for a crime and a offer to make a plea. guilty or not.. is by your consent.. to come under those charges and jurisdiction..you consent by pleading to it.

"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.

In the United States and England, the Common Law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction.

The principle of stare decisis was not always applied with uniform strictness. In medieval England, common-law courts looked to earlier cases for guidance, but they could reject those they considered bad law. Courts also placed less than complete reliance on prior decisions because there was a lack of reliable written reports of cases. Official reports of cases heard in various courts began to appear in the United States in the early 1800s, but semiofficial reports were not produced in England until 1865. When published reports became available, lawyers and judges finally had direct access to cases and could more accurately interpret prior decisions.

For stare decisis to be effective, each jurisdiction must have one highest court to declare what the law is in a precedent-setting case. The U.S. Supreme Court and the state supreme courts serve as precedential bodies, resolving conflicting interpretations of law or dealing with issues of first impression. Whatever these courts decide becomes judicial precedent.

In the United States, courts seek to follow precedent whenever possible, seeking to maintain stability and continuity in the law. Devotion to stare decisis is considered a mark of judicial restraint, limiting a judge's ability to determine the outcome of a case in a way that he or she might choose if it were a matter of first impression. Take, for example, the precedent set in roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, the 1973 decision that defined a woman's right to choose Abortion as a fundamental constitutional right. Despite the controversy engendered by the decision, and calls for its repudiation, a majority of the justices, including some conservatives who might have decided Roe differently, have invoked stare decisis in succeeding abortion cases.

Nevertheless, the principle of stare decisis has always been tempered with a conviction that prior decisions must comport with notions of good reason or they can be overruled by the highest court in the jurisdiction.

The U.S. Supreme Court rarely overturns one of its precedents, but when it does, the ruling usually signifies a new way of looking at an important legal issue. For example, in the landmark case brown v. board of education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954), the Supreme Court repudiated the separate-but-equal doctrine it endorsed in plessy v. ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896). The Court ignored stare decisis, renouncing a legal precedent that had legitimated racial Segregation for almost sixty years. Which is why there became a 13th and 14th Amendment because the Supreme Court had made precedent in Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford 60 U.S. 393

- March 6 1857 that slaves were property – chattel to there owners.

This was a ruling that needs to ve overturned... Vacated by this Prejudice discrimination. It was not by the rule of law and Natures God.