“Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. Indeed, it is repugnant to the principles of natural law, that such a state should subsist in any social system. The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.”

The false foundation he refers to in our day are the laws of commerce foreign to the jurisdiction of the common law that we are all under due to our voluntary consensual signatures on contracts (social security being the main one of hundreds) that places us under the foreign jurisdiction of commerce laws. When we sign those contracts we waive our constitutional rights in lieu of rights that are called privileges that are granted by the foreign to the Constitution government that oversees commercial jurisdiction. In truth, we have been suckered into placing common law jurisdiction secondary to this corporate jurisdiction. Excellent quote.

Anon, excellent observation. Its true that it begins with the acceptance of social security as being the ruse under which we give up a great many natural rights. And the government that is supposed to represent "we the people" is in fact merely a puppet regime serving foreign bankers. Whether we are slaves in wrapped chains or slaves wrapped in bureacratic and financial compliance...we're still slaves.

Anon excellent points with a caveat. All illegal agreements (such as would be implied by SS) are invalid and unenforceable at law. Such illegal agreements are only applicable and enforced by a system of criminals. By way of example: If two individuals were to agree to rob a bank and, as part of the agreement each had their duties (planning, etc.), vested expenditures, expected returns, etc. The day before the theft was to occur, one individual backed out. Because the agreement was contrary to or, not at common law (and otherwise) it was illegal ab initio, The continuing bandit could not sue in a court of law for breach of contract, loss, or any other reason. Only in an atmosphere of criminals could the abstaining individual be dealt with. Slavery is a criminal activity, it doesn't matter if the compelled compliance, victimless crimes, etc. are perpetrated by an individual, a group, the state, or any statist theocracy. Common law has been redefined and virtually eliminated in the U.S. The common law right to marry (whom ever you choose) within the apropos religious jurisdiction would have eliminated much controversy if the criminal state would not have made marriage illegal with out its privilege and several benefits granted. (-; no I'm not saying marriage is slavery - just another example of common law and the rights of man's being eliminated ;-)

Mike, good observation as well. Yes its a conspiracy of criminals. As to marriage...the only reason you sanction from the state is A: Compelled compliance. (they like that) And B; You enshrine yourselves as one "tax unit" and you do so willingly by agreeing to comply to licensing. Its all very absurd really.

Mike, didn't see your post til now sunday so I don't know if you'll see this but I wonder, as it's been awhile for me, if the fact that the individual not being aware, as he was never told, that he was waiving constitutional common law rights has ever cropped up in your experience as a defense for ridding oneself of the SS number. I am aware of cases, some have been won, which has opened up other battles with government over licensed business activities, by claiming the SS number is the mark of the beast based on the right to freedom of conscious based on religious belief and people want out of the contract. Even after these victories, some taking years, the government never lets up. The reason I ask if you've heard anything on the deception by not informing tactic nullifying the contract is because I thought I'd heard somewhere the government had shut off that avenue of redress by claiming ignorance of the law was no excuse and that it was not governments "job" to inform you that you were waiving your rights by signing the contract. Any thoughts?

This is scary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ZK_oSrNa0&NR=1 ... Google the words FEMA CAMPS. Then ask yourself, why?

Anon, I have a thought. What you are asking is pretty much this...Will a criminal regime give up its ability to extort your money and control your behaviour? No, is the answer. The fact that its all being done with the appearance of legality is simply part of the ruse. We have been incrementally duped into believing that our system is benevolent. It is not. So when someone finds a loophole in the immoral legal system it will be quickly closed by whatever means. There are no rules for these people and they will do to us whatever they want, whenever they want. And it is up to "We the people" to put an end to it. And its going to happen because the the ruse is being exposed more and more every day. That's why we are seeing the powers that be rush to clamp down on us...which is the very thing that is going to blow up on them.

Anon, I used that exact argument in the early 80s as part of a larger argument. At that time, I also used an argument that we had played out in moot court in college, i.e. SS is substantively, on its face, and in all ways unconstitutional. The general response we got back from the court was that SS was an integral part of the American fabric making our arguments frivolous. The official court record was changed to clean up what really happened. So Carlton is correct, it doesn't matter what lawful / Constitutional argument is used in such a corrupt court system, it will be put down for what ever reason the reigning priesthood robed minister on the bench wants to use at the time. There are still some individuals being found innocent of non-filling when a competent attorney plays to an informed jury.

oops, P.S. So there is real hope when good men do more than nothing while relearning what law, justice, original Constitutional intent, freedom, and liberty are in a non-despotic land.

Thank you both Mike and J. Carlton for your replies which I agree with both. Early 80's Mike? Same here and my argument was based on jurisdiction in a state civil matter though I must admit, I argued it incorrectly which knowledge gained after the fact and by hindsight I learned the errors of my way. In the end I won (another story in itself which I'll pass on telling) because they didn't get a dime of the judgement. Where there's a will there's a way. We do know the why of FEMA, don't we J. That's not a question, just a simple statement of fact.

Few today are aware of their enslavement.

that is an amazing quote !!!