Constitution Ratified to protect people from government.

Once you understand this “preamble,” you’ll see that the 2^nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was intended to protect the people of the several States of the Union—but not against invasion by foreign enemies—but rather, from despotism imposed by our own federal government.
If you google “Bill of Rights preamble” you’ll find several sources for this document.
Here’s the Preamble’s text:

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States

December 15, 1791

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The previous “preamble” is then followed by the first ten Amendments (“Bill of Rights”).
The fundamental “purposes” for the Bill of Rights is seen in the first paragraph/sentence of the Preamble:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Fifty-nine words. One sentence. Let’s take it apart, piece by piece:
• First, who caused the Bill of Rights to be added?
A: “THE Conventions of a number of States”.
Note that these “conventions” were not state legislatures, but were instead private “assemblies” of the People of the various States of the Union. These “conventions” took place to ratify the Constitution in A.D. 1787 & 1788.
The Constitution was ratified by the People, not by the State governments. That tells us that the People were the sovereigns (plural), not the governments of the States of the Union. In essence, the People/sovereigns agreed to ratify the Constitution on condition that a Bill of Right would subsequently be added. (It might be argued that if there’s no Bill of Rights, then there’s no Constitution.)
The Constitution is the “People’s law”. Statutes are the “government’s law”. The government’s law is intended to be of lower authority than the People’s law.
• Second, why did the People “desire” these first ten Amendments?
A: “[T]o prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.”
What does the preamble mean by “its powers”? It means the powers of the newly-ratified Constitution.
Who could misconstrue or abuse the powers of the newly-ratified Constitution? The States of the Union? No. The counties? No. Foreign countries like England, Canada or France? No.
Insofar as the federal government is the only entity with access to the powers of the Constitution, the only entity that might able to “misconstrue or abuse” the newly-granted powers of the Constitution would be the federal government.
Thus, the fundamental purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the States of the Union and the People of the States of the Union from the federal government.
Get that?
The People who founded this country expressly demonstrated in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights that the People, quite sensibly, didn’t trust the newly-created federal government as far as they could throw it. They regarded the federal government as a necessary evil and, as George Washington had once warned, at best a “dangerous servant”. Therefore, distrusting the newly-created federal government, the People insisted that the Constitution be amended to include additional protections for the People and against the federal government.
From this perspective, you can see that the 2^nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was intended to protect the People from federal government. I.e., the 2^nd Amendment was intended to empower the People to shoot federal politicians, officers and employees if they tried to use the Constitution as a device to subject the People to despotism rather than serve them.
(This implies that the fundamental purpose of the militia’s of the States of the Union (referenced in the 2^nd Amendment) was to protect the States against the federal government. This is particularly interesting insofar as modern “state militias” (National Guard) are now primarily under the control of the federal government rather than the governments of the Sates of the Union. Thus, the organized “militia” originally intended to protect the People against the federal government, has been captured by the feds and now primarily serves the federal government rather than the People of the States.)
The purpose for the 2^nd Amendment was to guarantee that the People had enough weapons to intimidate (and, if need be, kill) federal officers or employees if they attempted to subject the People to despotism (absolute rule). This is not a license to shoot any cop you don’t like. But, as declared in the “Declaration of Independence,”
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights refers to “misconstruction and abuse” of the powers of the Constitution. The “Declaration of Independence” refers to “abuses and usurpations”. I have no doubt that the “misconstruction” referenced in the Bill of Rights corresponds to the “usurpations” (unwarranted takings of powers not granted) in the Declaration.
“Despotism” means absolute and unlimited power confided to single man or elite group. It necessarily means that such “despot” would not recognize any higher authority including 1) the God of the Bible; and 2) the People. Instead, the “despot” (individual or elite group) would rule however he/it desired without limit or restraint imposed by others.
Correlatively, “despotism” means that the People other than the “despot(s)” are reduced not merely to status subjects (who have some rights such as the right of protection due from a monarch to his subjects), but to status of objects—to the status of chattel, goy, animals and “human resources”—who have virtually no rights whatsoever.
I.e., if the “despot” has absolute power, the People have no power (or rights) whatsoever.
The Declaration declares that when there is persistent evidence (a “long train of abuses and usurpations”) that a particular “government” intends to rule with absolute authority, recognizing no higher authority and reducing the people to the status of objects without rights—then it is the People’s right and even duty to “throw off” such despotic government and form a new government whose principle duty would to secure the People’s “future security” rather than the security of the despot and/or of the government (perhaps under the pretext of “national security”).
Thus, the Declaration was based in part on the principle that the fundamental purpose of government is to serve the People rather than compel the People to serve the government.
But, when there was sufficient evidence to show that a government had abandoned its role as servant and assumed the role of master (despot), then it was the People’s right and duty to “throw off” such government and construct another.
How do you suppose such despotic governments should (or could) be thrown off? By petitioning our congressmen? By voting the despot(s) out of office?
Insofar as we are subjected to a despotic government, by definition, that government doesn’t give a damn about anything the People say or vote because the despots presume the People to be objects rather than men and women made in our Father YHWH Elohiym’s image and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. By definition, a despotic government will not admit the People have rights or peacefully restore power to the People.
When faced with a despotic government, the people have only three choices: 1) surrender and submit to the violence of despotism; 2) wait on God to miraculously remove the despots; and 3) commit violent acts to “throw off” the despots.
Despotism is, by definition, violent. Either the People consent to be subjected to the despot’s violence, or the People rise up to “throw off” the despot by subjecting the despot to violence. The United States of America began with the choice to “throw off” the despots by means of violence against the despot.
The right to commit violence against despots would be essentially meaningless unless the People retained sufficient weapons to affect that overthrow.
The 2^nd Amendment is evidence that the Founders: 1) never trusted the federal government; and 2) sought to provide the People with sufficient weapons to “throw off” any despots that might one day seize control of the levers of federal power.
The 2^nd Amendment’s purpose is not to protect the right to go duck hunting in the Fall. It’s not to protect us against invasion by Red China. The 2^nd Amendment recognized that the principle enemy of the People of The United States of America was, and would always be, our own federal government.
Thus, the 2^nd Amendment’s purposes are:
1) always to intimidate the federal government with the implicit threat of blowing their damn brains out if they become despots (masters) rather than servants; and
2) rarely, but sometimes, to shoot and kill any agents of despotic government.
Much like the 2^nd Amendment, the 1^st Amendment’s protections for freedoms of assembly, speech, press and petitioning government for redress of grievance were all intended to prevent the federal government from silencing the people in order to subject them to Despotism.
Likewise, every one of the first ten Amendments were ratified for the purpose of protecting the People of the States from the federal government’s intentional “misconstruction” or “abuse” of the powers of the Constitution of the United States.
• Third, how can we describe the first ten Amendments?
A: As “declaratory and restrictive clauses”.
Who makes “declarations”? Sovereigns.
I.e., the “sovereigns” (We the People) made certain “declarations” (Bill of Rights) concerning how the powers that we delegated to the federal government might be exercised by our servants—the federal officers and employees.
What do these clauses “restrict”? The Bill of Rights was intended to restrict the ability of federal officers and employees to exercise the powers granted by the Constitution.
Just as the “governor” on an engine is intended to ensure that the engine will never exceed a certain speed, the Bill of Rights was intended to ensure that the federal government would never exceed the limits of powers intended and granted by the Founders.
• Fourth, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights further explains a purpose of the Bill of Rights as, “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
The term “confidence” typically implies the existence of a trust relationship wherein the beneficiary “trusts” the fiduciary (servant) to act in the best interests of the beneficiary. Similarly, the term “beneficent” is sufficiently similar to “beneficiary” to imply the existence of a trust relationship.
As used in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, The terms “public confidence” and “beneficent ends” imply that the Constitution is a trust indenture wherein the People (sovereigns) are intended to be the beneficiaries and the government (and it officers and employees) are intended to be fiduciaries (servants) acting in the best interests of the People/beneficiaries. The “beneficent ends” of the Constitution were to serve the best interests of the People of the several States of the Union.
• George Washington—the first president of the federal government—once warned that, “Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Washington saw government as existing in only two forms:
1) dangerous servant; and
2) fearful master.
In Washington’s view, the best you ever get from any government is a “dangerous servant”.
That is, under a trust indenture like the Constitution, government may be the People’s servant/fiduciary—but that government is always struggling to reverse that relationship, assume the role of the “master”/sovereign and reduce the people to the role of fiduciaries/servants (or even objects). Washington warned that while government may be your servant, that servant is always dangerous, always seeking to overthrow the People’s sovereignty and claim absolute power and sovereignty for itself. Thus, anyone dumb enough to trust the government is a fool and a lousy excuse for an “American”.
Insofar as the “dangerous servant” succeeds in usurping power and sovereignty for itself, it evolves into the “fearful master” (despot) and the People are necessarily degraded to the status of subjects, objects or even animals.
Since A.D. 1933, American history provides ample evidence that our “ever-dangerous servant” has usurped and abused powers, that it is bent on becoming our national despot and reducing Americans to the status of “objects” or “animals”.
As irrefutable evidence, consider the articles I’ve written on “man or other animals” at http://adask.wordpress.com/category/man-or-other-animals/. Pay particular attention to http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/#more-46 and http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-3/#more-47 which show that our government has expressly declared the People to be nothing more than “animals” and that doing so constitutes an act of GENOCIDE against the American People.
This is no joke. Genocide. It’s not hyperbole. When you apply the facts to the law of genocide, it’s apparent that your purported government, right now, is committing genocide against you, me and the American people. This is absolute evidence that our “dangerous servant” is evolving into the “fearful master”.
Who believes that today’s “government” is acting in the best interests of the American People? Anyone? Who believes that today’s federal “government” has not perpetrated “a long train of abuses and usurpations” against We the People? Who would deny that the evidence of this “long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”?
As declared in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to The Constitution of the United States are intended to protect us against the despotism of the federal government. Use them accordingly.

In the beginning, there was the Word . . . .

And almost immediately thereafter, there was attorning and manipulation of words–resulting in “propaganda”. (“Surely, you will not die . . . .”)

”He who dictates and formulates the words and phrases we use, he who is master of the press and radio, is master of the mind. Repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity for communicating dissent and opposition. This is the formula for political conditioning of the masses.” -Joost Meerloo

“If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it… In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” - Edward Bernays

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

We are not ensnared or enslaved by guns and clubs–we are ensnared by words. Those who don’t respect their dictionaries as much as their firearms have little hope of being free. Those more willing to shoot than to speak out are similarly condemned

DEFINITION OF LAW

WWW.ADASK.WORDPRESS.COM
As Bill Clinton once observed, when it comes to knowing what a law means, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” In other words, the meaning of every law depends on the underlying definitions of every word used to comprise that law.

This implies that if you’re charged under a particular law and you can successfully refute the presumed definition of just one of the key words in that law, you may be able to defeat the charges.

Recognize that most words have several definitions and you can see that discovering the the meaning of any law can be very complex. For example, suppose there’s a law that consists of ten words and each of those ten words have just two different possible definitions. If I’m doing my math properly, there would be 2 to the 10^th power (1,024) possible meanings for that 10-word “law”. So, which of the 1,012 possible meanings for that 10 word law is the law?
As Clinton said, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
The law depends on the definitions of the words used to write the law. Thus, the definitions are the underlying and even superior “law” of the law.
But who gets to declare what that meaning of a word is? Who has authority to define words?

• I subscribe to the hypothesis that since A.D. 1968 (the loss of silver-backed currency): 1) the term “The State” has been generally used by the “system” to describe the States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”; and 2) the term “this state” has been used by the system as a “code” to signify something other than the States of the Union and probably administrative divisions of a single national “territory” under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress (Art. 4.3.2 of The Constitution of the United States).
I didn’t author that hypothesis, but I’ve supported it for a decade or more. I’ve written a series of articles that touch on that hypothesis (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/category/the-state-vs-this-state/).
For me, one of the most important “finds” in support of that hypothesis was Article 1.04(d) of the Texas Penal Code (see, http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm) which defines the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” as follows:

“This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water over which this state has power to define offenses.”

Note that “this state” is not defined to include any people, nor does it have any geographic borders. Without border, it could be global (or even universal) in nature. It might be the working definition of the territorial jurisdiction of the New World Order.
But, most importantly, I read Texas Penal Code 1.04(d) to mean that the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” exists wherever “this state has power to define offense”.
This implies that it’s all about definitions.
Given that “this state” has no geographical borders (and presumably extends out to Oklahama, Canada, Mexico and even Mars), it appears that if you accept the definitions of “this state,” then you’re presumed to be in the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”. If so, it may follow that if you reject the definitions of “this state,” you are not “in this state” or subject to its territorial jurisdiction.

• Note also that the definition of this state’s territorial jurisdiction relies on the “power to define offenses”—not the “authority to define offenses”.
For example, on this blog, I have the “power” to define words any way I like. If I want to define the word “peace” to mean “war,” I have the power to do so within the “jurisdiction” of my blog. Not one of you can stop me from defining words however I like on my blog.
But. While I may have the power to define words however I please on my blog, I do not have the authority to make any one of you accept my definitions. So long as I have power—but not authority—to define words, you have a choice as to whether you wish to agree that “war” means “war” or “war” means “peace”.
I believe that something similar applies to the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”. The “Achilles heel” of “this state” appears to be that it has much power, but no authority. Today, The States of the Union appear to have virtually no power, but still retain all of the authority. “This state,” conversely, has virtually all of the power, but none of the authority.
Why? Because authority over the people flows from the People’s consent. That consent was manifested on a state-wide basis by the Constitution of The State of Texas. “This state,” however, has no express constitution authorized by We the People. Thus, “this state” has no authority over you or me, unless you or I grant that authority on a case-by-case, transaction-by-transaction basis. I might recognize the “authority” of “this state” today in my decision to register my automobile; I might reject the “authority” of “this state” tomorrow when I refuse to pay sales taxes. It’s my choice every time I transact.
Without our presumed consent (actually, assent), “this state” couldn’t exist. This notion seems to underlie the de facto officer doctrine created by the US Supreme Court: If some employee of a private corporation wearing a badge and a gun comes up to you and you say “What seems to be the problem, officer”—it will be presumed that you have just recognized that private employee as an “officer” of the de jure government; that, by your act of “recognition,” you have thereby given that private employee authority (that he didn’t have from his employer) to proceed against you; that you have voluntarily provided that employee with immunity from your subsequent lawsuit against him for impersonating an “officer” of the constitutional State’s government.
Everything I’ve been able to see for ten years indicates that “this state” is all based on your presumed assent. Because you don’t expressly object, it is presumed that you have voluntarily but silently “assented” to the exercise of power by “this state”. However, if you can defeat that presumption (and I don’t suggest that it’s easy to do so), it appears that you may be able to walk right out from under the “power” of “this state”.

• Insofar as definitions are the foundation for the territorial jurisdiction of “this state,” if you don’t asssent to the definitions “proposed” by “this state,” you’re not really “in this state”.
Of course, before you can object to any of the definitions proposed by “this state,” you’ve got to begin to discover those definitions and learn to read them with enough insight to refute them and then claim to use a different definition.
I don’t mean to suggest that you decide to insist on your own, “homemade” definitions as an alternative to the definitions of “this state”. You will not be able to define “war” to be “peace” and expect the courts of “this state” to do much more than grin and ship you off for a psyche evaluation.
In order to challenge the definitions of “this state,” you will have to be able to point to alternative definitions that are supported by some authority that “this state” will not be able to easily deny—especially in front of a jury.
For example, when I was sued by the Texas Attorney General for $25,000/day ($9 million /year) (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/) I devised a “freedom of religion” defense and (after investing 6 years and most of one-half million dollars in the pretrial investigation and hearings in the case), the Texas AG dropped the lawsuit. I didn’t fully understand it at the time (A.D. 2006), but the essence of my defense was a challenge to the definitions of “this state”. The gov-co defined the people to be “animals”. I argued that as Jew or Christian, I cannot be defined as an “animal” without violating a fundamental principle of my faith: that man alone is created in God’s image and given “dominion over the animals” (Genesis 1:26-28). I defined myself as a “man” under God’s law. The AG’s office presumably realized they could never find a jury that included even one Christian or Jew to vote that I and the rest of the People are animals—and dropped the case.
The Texas Penal code’s definition of “this state,” supra, includes no fixed borders and no people. However, if I recall correctly, in the A.D. 1869 case of Texas v White, the Supreme Court defined a “State” (of the Union) to normally include: 1) the People; 2) a fixed territory; and 3) a State government. Such a “State” (of the Union) could exist without fixed borders or even without a functioning State government, but could not exist without any People. Thus, the Supreme Court’s definition of a State of the Union (which includes People) is clearly different from the Texas Penal Code’s definition of “this state” (which apparently has no People).
I infer that if you want to challenge the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” simply identify yourself under oath as one of the People of The State of Texas—just as it says in the Preamble to The Constitution of The State of Texas: “Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
This strategy is not certain to free you from the “territorial jurisdiction” of “this state”—other tactics may be required to affect your Liberty—but defining yourself under the authority of the Texas Constitution as one of the People of The State of Texas is a big first step in that direction.

• I’ve argued for several months that if you would be free, you must have at least as many dictionaries as you have firearms.
One dictionary is not enough. You need several dictionaries from several different eras so you can view the meaning of a word in one dictionary from A.D. 1828 and compare it to another dictionary in A.D. 1933 and another from A.D. 2009. By comparing the definitions of a particular word over a century or more, you’ll begin to appreciate how fluid and unfixed meanings can be.
Once you see how quickly definitions can change (especially in law dictionaries), you’ll begin to see that a definition from even yesterday might not be the definition today. Once you appreciate how quickly the definitions can change, you’ll be led to ask, “Who sez what a definition is at any particular time?” In other words, under whose authority is the definition of a word changed or decided at any given time?
In some instances, the authority is the Supreme Court. In some instances, Congress. But in many instances the authority is We the People in the context of our private contracts, notices, trusts and daily communications. Insofar as those definitions are changed by common usage, they’re changed by mutual consent. (For example, today’s common definition of the word “gay” is quite different from the common definition of 50 years ago. That change has been achieved by mutual consent.) If you don’t consent to a definition that depends on your consent, you’re not likely to be bound by the terms of whatever sentences use that word and definition.

• More, even when the Congress or Supreme Court acts with apparent authority to define words (and thus would not seem to require your personal consent) under certain circumstances, their apparent authority can be challenged. If their authority is missing, then the definition cannot be imposed but instead requires your consent.
For example, the 9^th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States declares, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.” The 9^th Amendment is the doorway back to the “Declaration of Independence” that declares that, “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Thus, the 9^th Amendment’s protection for rights not expressly “enumerated” in the Constitution opens the door for me to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights first declared in the “Declaration”.
But. Who is defined by the 9^th Amendment as being entitled to claim those unenumerated rights? The “people”. (“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.”) If you appear in court in the capacity of a “citizen,” “inhabitant,” “individual,” “resident,” “person” or any one of a score of other descriptions, your claim of God-given, unalienable Rights might be ignored. Court is a game of words much like Mother May I or Simon Says. If you don’t say the exactly right word at the right time, you may lose.

• Insofar as the 9^th Amendment opens the door for me to claim my God-given, unalienable Rights, it also opens the door to challenge the authority of Congress or the Supreme Court to define any word in a way that would “deny or disparage” any of my unenumerated rights.
For example, the drug laws define the people to be “animals”. If you and I are mere “animals,” then: 1) we are not men made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”); and 2) we are not “people” under the 9^th Amendment. As “animals,” we have no standing to claim any God-given, unalienable Rights or complain if those rights are violated.
But. Does the Congress or Supreme Court have authority to define you and I to be “animals”? No.
Why?
Because defining us to be “animals” violates our freedom of religion (as protected by the 1^st Amendment) and our access to our God-given, unalienable Rights (as secured by the 9^th Amendment). Insofar as you can point to authority in the Bible, Declaration of Independence, and 1^st and 9^th Amendments to show that you are a “man” and one of the “people,” you can claim your God-given, unalienable Rights and individual sovereignty any time you find enough intelligence, knowledge and courage to do so.
What’s the implication?
The implication is that you can be defined and treated as an “animal” only so long as you consent (or assent) to that definition. Would you like to regain your Liberty? Stop assenting to be treated as an “animal” (or any other kind of entity other than a “man made in God’s image, endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and one of the People of The State of Texas” (or of some other States of the Union).
If this strategy seems fairly simple, it’s still not easy to execute. You’re not likely to walk into court mumble a few words about the Bible, Declaration and 9^th Amendment and see the case against you dismissed.
It’s a word game, remember?
Insofar as that’s true, you must be fluent in the language. You must be adept at using words. You must make it your business to discipline your mind to think and speak in complete sentences. No more “watchamacallits” or “whatisface” or “y’unnerstan?”. You must aspire to write and speak like Thomas Jefferson. Not many of us will achieve that objective. But if you aspire only to talk like one of your “homies in duh hood,” you may be cool, baby, but you be goin’ to jail.
If you want out from under “this state,” your first step is to become fluent in the English language.

• Once you begin to study and learn your own language, once you begin to study dictionaries, you’ll begin to understand that definitions are ultimately consensual in nature. Insofar as the exercise of power by “this state” depends on a preliminary Notice or a meeting of the minds, that Notice and/or “meeting” depend on the parties agreeing to the definitions of the words which comprise that notice of “meeting of the minds”. If you can effectively refute the definitions of “this state,” you may be able to hold “this state” at bay.
The battle against tyranny may devolve into a shooting revolution, but that battle is first and foremost a battle of words. You are ensnared in a seemingly invisible net composed of nothing more than words.
It follows that, insofar as you become adept at discerning between the meanings and definitions of words, you can begin to extricate yourself from the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”.