Exclaiming your Sovereignty, and Making Your Case

download the text file by clicking AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

Throughout history, as a rite of passage, when humans wanted to do something bold, whether it be running for office, climbing a tall mountain, getting married, or traveling to a distant land, they had always made some statement or declaration to the world in regards to their decisions. When people make decisions which will greatly affect their lives, and quite possibly the world around them, it is common for them to give speeches, write manifestos, jot down poetry, or to create public contracts. When asserting your status as a sovereign individual, with natural inherent rights, which are self-evident even to the animals who reside in the thick brush, it is also important for you to make a public declaration. Even as a dog respects the thorns of a rose, it seems apparent that respect and sovereignty would be self-evident, however, in human society, the necessity to formally declare one’s status as free, remains important.

The Affidavit of Truth and learning how to sign your name correctly remain as the two easiest ways for a layman to do this. An affidavit is a sworn testimony of truth written by an individual that is often signed and confirmed in the presence of a notary. When dealing with a court case, affidavits can be submitted to the courts, and can be used as evidence, or even by request, you could ask the courts to refute each point made within the affidavit. If the affidavit cannot be refuted in a timely manner, then it is recognized under Common Law that it becomes a solidified statement of TRUTH, thus contributing to common law itself.

         "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 (9^th 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.  (ANY AFFIDAVIT , UNREFUTTED, WHETHER IT CORRESPONDS TO A DEBT OR A RULING, MUST STAND AS TRUTH)

Unlike our legislative process, whose privileges can only be vested into a small number of inducted individuals, Common law can be used, challenged, and debated by anyone who can afford the cost of court, and can solidify his statements as being true, while those true statements become a part of common law itself, as decided by the Supreme Court.

Although, many aspects of Common Law such as Roe v. Wade are constantly changing due to public opinion, many aspects of common law remain in the realm of common sense and within wide scale acceptance. Unlike the Congress or the Senate, the courts, are bound to law, and must weigh legality in addition to evidence as to whether or not something stands as truth and is to be carried on as so. When politicians change the law, it is simply instituted by a vote, which is often based on solely on popular opinion or bribery, without judiciously weighing the evidence or consent from the common man through a Supreme jury. 

Writing an affidavit of Truth is an easy and great way to formalize your status. I will provide a sample copy. As you study this book, and many others like it, you may decide to alter it and make your very own stronger affidavit. As your knowledge will slowly increase, you will learn to sharpen your arguments with precise case studies and sensible logic.

Secondly, you must learn how to sign your name on documents. Either next to, or underneath your signature, get into the habit of writing "All Rights Reserved”. Which basically means that you agree to the said contract, without giving up your natural rights. If you are being forced to sign something with the threat of consequence to do so otherwise, sign it "All Rights Reserved- Under Duress”. Or simply  "Under Duress” if you want to keep it simple.  Under Duress- states that you agree to sign involuntarily because of a threat, and do not necessarily agree to the terms.

For practice, I would recommend writing "All Rights Reserved” anytime you sign ANYTHING, especially if it’s from a government agency. To have a more professional look, you may even want to carry a pocket stamp that says  "All Rights Reserved”.  Ever since the days of ancient man, a signature has always held a lot of weight, and the penalties for forging someone else’s signature have also been just as powerful, as a man’s signature symbolizes his very being.  In many cultures, including America during the colonial era, signing your name in blood or using a finger print with blood was used to add even more weight to the signature. Some today, actually prefer to sign important documents with a red pen to signify the color of blood for this purpose.  However, simple blue ink will do for most things today, whether it be a signature or finger print.

Alongside the Affidavit of Truth, you may also decide to carry separate affidavits for other activities that are regulated in governmental society.  You could create affidavits for your right to travel, fish, hunt, an Identification Document with a signature/fingerprint/Photo, and to signify a Cultural/Religious Declaration of Marriage which will include terms and agreements created by you and your spouse, not by the state. While all being notarized of course.  When making an Affidavit for Marriage or to prove your Identity, you may want to include additional lines for witnesses or third parties who may be included in the affidavit. For example, if you wanted to create an Identification affidavit, you could include a photo, a statement stating your name, physical features, and who gave birth to you. You could include your finger prints, and a signature from your mother proving that she gave birth to you and asserts your identity, and finish the document with a notarized stamp. Who could refute that?  Even though these matters are quite serious, in due time, it becomes quite fun and empowering taking back your identity and sense of self ownership. Later I will discuss the UCC and how to sign over your government strawman (RANDELL D STROUD) back to your real self, (Randell: Daryl- Stroud). As for now please take a look at two sample documents that are easy to understand, especially for beginners.

feel free to copy and print this affidavit. Make several copies to carry with you, and to submit to any offices or jurisdictions, keep the original notarized version at home. Feel free to edit this affidavit, improve it, and add in your own researched statements.

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.

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.”

4. I may voluntarily 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. 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 13^THAmendment 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, 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 13^th 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. Therefore, under duress, I carry a "license” only to avoid extreme inconvenience. ‘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.

1. "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.

1. 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.

1. 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).

1. 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.

1. "Citizenship”: Any document I may have ever signed, in which I answered "yes” to the question, "Are you a [insert name of "country" here] 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 "[insert name of "country" here] 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 "[insert name of "country" here] 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:_______________________________________

Printed Name:__________________________________

Date:_________________________________________

Source: http://sovereigntactics.org/?page_id=103