Important! US is a foreign owned corporation...

The Corporation Of The United States Of America Is It True? We Are Not Under Common Law?

Ads by Google

LLC in 3 Easy Steps www.LegalZoom.com/LLC

(1) Sign Up (2) Fill in Online Form (3) Launch Your New Business!

Effective Divorce Lawyer www.dhpfirm.com

30+ years in Alaska. Quality Services - Reasonable Fees

Ask a Lawyer Online Now Law.JustAnswer.com

A Lawyer Will Answer in Minutes! Questions Answered Every 9 Seconds.

Preamble of the Original Constitution

"We the People of the United States , in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

An Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, 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 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."

The Corporation Of The United States Of America

We Are Free!

Every year it comes and goes, Independence Day, the Fourth Of July. It is a celebration that occurs every year in every town and city in the country. We line up on Main Street to watch parades. We gather in fields to watch firework displays.

What are we celebrating?

The formation of the country?
The anniversary of a document?
NO!
We are supposed to be celebrating the very thing that this country stands for. Freedom!
"We Are Not FREE!" The truth is that we have not been free people for a very long time.
The day is designated as a time to honor our "Independence". A celebration of free people living in the land of Liberty. We listen to songs of the magnificence of our Nation, we hang our flags in a joyous, patriotic, euphoria. In reality there are not many Americans that have the consciousness that they are in fact, not Free.
This is an illusion that the entities which control our Country immortalize to avoid the People from coming to the awareness of the truth. It allows them to keep the population under the combative control of a global conglomerate of corporate control.
The Freedoms that we have lost, we have given up willingly through lack of education and apathy. Allowing ourselves to be distracted by baubles and shiny objects like children. We the People did not know how to maintain our Freedoms, or how they could be taken from us. Our Forefathers had no way to grasp what the future would hold for us.

I Have Constitutional Rights!

Those in denial will immediately shout about the document known as the Constitution. Our Constitution is the representation of liberty for the people. It symbolizes the Representative form of government that is no longer in existence within the United States of America.
The Constitution is dead and our representative republic has been replaced with a democratic central government that is rampantly corrupt. The saddest part of this fiasco is that most Americans will never know or realize exactly what it was that they lost. The people are unable to see the deceit which replaces the actual truth. They will never pull the curtain aside to see the manipulators for what they are.
To begin to gain knowledge of the truth we need to start to understand what happened to our representative republic, it all started shortly after the ending of the hostilities known as the American Civil War. It was in the year 1871 that the deterioration and elimination of our representative republic was introduced.
Let us delve into the actual history of our Republic, the truth that the government does not want the People to be aware exists!

An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia

The Cause

Our nation went through a transformative event following the conflicts of the Civil War. The country had used all its credit and wealth on funding the war. It was in essence Bankrupt!
Through some fancy maneuvers done by International Bankers, European Interests put a yolk of debt and servitude on the American people. The Civil War had been financed and fought to put the young country under such a stranglehold. Simply to be able to use the energy, time, and labor of the population for its own greedy interests.
On the day of February 21, 1871 with the Forty-First Congress in session an Act was passed*. The title was "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia" also known as the "Act of 1871."
This Act stated that Congress, which it had no constitutional authority to do, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which in reality is only a ten mile square piece of land.

The Swindle

The Congress knew that our country was bankrupt, so they made an arrangement with the International Bankers to run up a Debt to these Foreign Banks ( the Rothschilds of London were investing in many enterprises Globally).
One thing that everyone knows about banks is that they do not lend money simply to be kind. The only way that a Bank would enter into a contract is if it would benefit the Bank. Some kind of Collateral, or some kind of scheme that would put the population into servitude to the Banks would be necessary.
The sneaky and manipulating International Bankers would not lend money to our financially troubled nation without some stipulations. They came up with a devious scheme to gain control over the country that they had desired for a long time. The Founding Fathers detested these Foreign Entities and kept them at bay until the Act of 1871 was passed.
The Act formed the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. It is the capitalization that is important. This Corporation which was owned by Foreign Entities immediately did away with the original Constitution.
The Act of 1871 changed our Constitution. The title was Capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "OF" in the title.
"The Constitution for the united states of America" was written by the Founding Fathers. The international bankers had it changed to "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".

Corporate Constitution

It may look the same but it is not the same. The Corporate Constitution works on an economic level. It is used to trick the People into thinking it is the same Constitution for the Republic.
IT IS NOT!
CAPITILIZATION, not important?
When dealing with a Legal Document it is very important. These small changes has had a direct impact on every generation born under its inception. When Congress passed the Act of 1871 it created an entirely new document. The new document would be a Constitution for the government for the District Of Columbia.
The government that was formed was a Corporation. This new and improved Constitution is not a document for America. It is a Constitution for the Corporation.
Was this done in the best interest of the Nation?
NO!
The Corporate Constitution is not for the good of the Republic, it is for the good of the Corporation. It does not benefit the populace of the country and it operates outside the parameters of the original Constitution.
Instead of guaranteeing your rights it offers you privileges. For example: Sovereign's right to travel, which under Corporate Government Policy has been changed into into a "privilege" and a license is required. This is in violation of the original Constitution.
By doing such a horrendous act Congress committed Treason against the People. Under the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution the people were considered Sovereign Individuals.

What Is a Sovereign?

Before we discuss "Sovereign," let us try to figure out what it means.
Webster's Dictionary defines "sovereign" as:
1. chief or highest; supreme.
2. Supreme in power, superior in position to all others.
3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other, possessing or entitled to, original and independent authority or jurisdiction.
The government of the United states of America was created by and for "sovereigns". The free people who were citizens of the country were deemed the highest authority. Only the People can be Sovereign. The Government cannot be sovereign. It can also be found in the Declaration of Independence, where it says "government is subject to the consent of the governed". That is the People in other words, us, the sovereigns.
Do you feel like a sovereign?
It does not take a constitutional scholar to see out that this is not the way it is in the country today. Government today does not seek or require the consent of those who are governed. It is more like the governed serve at the beckon call of the CORPORATION.
The same Corporation that has reached beyond the ten square miles assigned to it. The Corporation of the District of Columbia which is now infringing on the rights of the states. There is no jurisdiction for the corporation outside of its little ten miles of influence.

Ignorance of the law is NO excuse!

You Should Know The Law!

There is a presumption that every citizen should be aware of the law. This just seems a little unreasonable considering we are not taught anything about the law in school. Instead they make us memorize little facts and sayings. we are taught the Preamble, but the education system ignores the Bill Of Rights.
The Corporate Government Schools completely ignore the Law. Nor do they delve into the Constitution very deeply. The Corporate school system is not set up to provide a usable education, they are in place to indoctrinate and dumb down the population.
Nobody will tell you that your country was sold to Foreign Entities. Nor will they tell you that the people have inherited the debt incurred by Congress to International Bankers. Generations of American people have had their wealth confiscated to pay a debt that they, the People, did not incur.
Think about how the government has changed from a Municipal Entity into a Corporate Entity the next time you hear someone say the Constitution is no longer relevant. We are living a lie, we are being ruled by an unlawful government.

Roman Civil Law and Admiralty/Maritime Law

The Act of 1871, once passed created the illusion of Freedom. Congress willingly and knowingly sold out the American People and The Nation to Foreign Interests. The deceit was complete. This treasonous act brought the nation to its knees. Once the People were forced to surrender their Gold in 1933, the betrayal of the Republic was complete.
This is just a copy of Roman Civil Law, our Government is now based on Roman Civil Law and Admiralty/Maritime Law. Some other descriptions are "Divine Right of Kings" and "Law of the Seas".
Roman Civil Law was initiated into the colonies when the charters were written. Long before we ever existed as a Nation. This is also known as "Private International Law.

US is a Corporation, not a Country. Got a problem with that?

Private International Law, and not Common Law

The Constitutional Republic, which was created by the Original Constitution had Common Law as the law of the land. The District Of Columbia has a Government which was established by the Act of 1871, it uses Private International Law instead of Common Law.
A very important point to make is that Private International Law only can be utilized in the District Of Columbia. It is not supposed to be applicable within any of the States of the Union.
The Corporation is divided into different departments Justice Department, Treasury Department etc... People think these Departments are part of the Country.
Wrong!
These departments are all part of the CORPORATION Of THE UNITED STATES.**
They do not answer to the People under the Corporate Constitution and its Amendments operate outside the Original Constitutional Republic.
Do not think that the Corporation Of The United States is separate from the government. The Corporation is the Federal Government! IT IS THE GOVERNMENT!
That is right! Your Government is a Corporation! It is run under Roman Civil Law and operates outside of the Original Constitution!
"There is no way my Congressman knows this?"
Yeah Right!

Congress Is Aware Of The Deception

Congress knows exactly what happened Congress does not answer to the People. They answer first and foremost to the Corporation (aka. The United States) for which they are employees.
This is why illegal laws such as the income tax laws are not abolished. These so called Representatives are not OUR Civil Servants. They serve the Corporation only, you are merely the instrument that provides financing to them.
All the Committees and Sub-Committees that have been created by Congress all work in unison like a multi-headed Hydra to control all the Corporate Departments. Any actions by these Committees outside of the District Of Columbia is in complete violation of the LAW.
Once again, The Corporation Of The United States has absolutely NO JURISDICTION outside of The District Of Columbia. They have zero authority within any State of the Republic.
"This could not have really happened,who do you think your kidding."
This did not happen by accident. Please do your own Research!

Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse

Your Government has no responsibility to inform you of this. In the United States there is a presumption that you should know the Law.
They know you are not aware of this, they know because they made sure you would not be taught this in Corporate Government controlled School Systems.
A Sovereign Individual has a right to have all information disclosed to them. A Slave is entitled to nothing other then what their controllers wish to allow them, at A Cost. Be very careful of accepting certain Benefits from the Corporation Of The United States as they come with a price.
Once again, You are presumed to KNOW THE LAW. If you are not aware of the Law it matters not to the Corporation. You cannot claim Ignorance as a reason you do not know the Law. It is your Responsibility and your Obligation to know how the Law is applied to YOU.
They depend on peoples lackadaisical approach to Knowledge of the Law. It makes their job easier. The distractions in Life lead People to allow Government to think for them.
If we ever want our Republic back, this all needs to CHANGE.

YOU ARE PROPERTY!

The Government of the UNITED STATES is basically a Corporate Instrument of the International Bankers. In other words, YOU are owned by a Corporation from the time you are Birthed until the time of your death.
Everything you believe you own as property is a LIE! All your Assets, all your Property, even your Children are owned by the United States Corporation.
"You still do not believe it?"
Think about all those Bills you need to pay to the Government. Think of all the Taxes, all the Fines, Licenses, think of all the fees you are required to Pay. Do some Research on your own, read about the 14th amendment. Study the Act of 1871 and you will see how a great Nation of Sovereigns living in a Republic have been reduced to chattel of a democracy.
Under Roman Civil Law, because we were not aware of the facts, led to our Silence. The Silence of the People was misinterpreted as consent which left us to carry the burden of a Debt we did not Incur.
The People have been utterly deceived into still believing that we are a Sovereign People. Free and Independent, when the Truth is we are Slaves and Servants of the Corporation.

It Is Treason!

In 1871, the Forty-First Congress in essence committed Treason against the Sovereign People of the Republic of the United States. If there had been people of Honor in our Government this Ruse could have long ago been rectified. Instead the Lust for Money and Power has turned Honest men into Greedy Power Brokers.
"Could we forgive this aberration?"
Why should we! We have lost more Freedom then can be realized. All because of a Corporate Infiltration of the Federal Government.
The Constitutional Republic needs to be Restored. This facade of a democracy needs to come crumbling down.
Our men and women in uniform, who fight to preserve the ideals of a great country have been abused. They have fought, and often times died for a cause they were deluded into believing. Fighting in wars instigated by the Corporation to gain even more Power and Control worldwide.
Why would the People be willing to fight and die for a Corporate Interest that is not even of this country. Why fight a war initiated and funded through Foreign Bankers.
We need to educate the masses to this truth. The People have been lied to for too long. We need a REVOLUTION, not one of Violence but one of Education.
I do not know if the Original Constitutional Republic could ever be restored. I would hope that the Sovereign People once Educated could work together to restore our Great Nation.
It is the least we could do for Future Generations, to secure their Freedom and Liberty. Things which our Ancestors fought so hard to create. Will we Rise to the Call or simply remain silent as we have for so many years?
One last thought:FREEDOM
* Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62
**UNITED STATES CODE (The capitalization, symbolizes the Corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C).

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”.