Social Security: Mark of the Beast!

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)
Translate this Page!

mobpreviousbutton.jpg (2648 bytes) mobnextbutton.jpg (2403 bytes) mobtablebutton.jpg (3326 bytes)


Appendix O


Your state does not have a judicial branch of government.  The missing judicial branch was the court system originally created as a check and balance to prohibit civil servants from controlling their masters.  That's right.  The judicial branch was created to protect you from government.  Inquisition is trial by government.  Inquisition is prohibited within a State.  TRIAL BY GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITED BY YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION. 

The judicial branches of state governments enforce the un-legislated Biblical law.  As I have repeatedly shown, servants are not greater then their masters.  Legislated laws do not apply to people outside the government. 

The separation of powers prohibits the judicial branch from enforcing legislated law.  These judicial courts are almost extinct, because only sovereigns are qualified to use them.  You cannot be sovereign within your state if other persons govern you. 

The master controls the servant.  Always.  This is true for the Lord Almighty, and it is true for you.  And civil servants control their subordinates.  You are sovereign if you are the master of your civil servants.  This is why Christians are hated by those in power.  

In their courts, you no longer place your left hand on a Bible, while saluting the black robed priest with your right hand.  I see this as worship of a false god.

Here are proofs that judicial powers do not exist.

People:  Pay attention. 

Proof #1: There is a separation of powers.  Judicial courts do not enforce statutes.  Legislative courts enforce statutes.  "Courts enforcing statutes do not act judicially", Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.  Courts are often empowered to act as administrative adjudicators, as in Federal Radio Commission v. GE 281 US 464.    The US Supreme Court said: “Such legislative or administrative jurisdiction, it is well settled cannot be conferred on this court either directly or by appeal.”, Keller v. Potomac 261 US 428.  Keller v. Potomac also went on to explain Muskrat v. US, 219 US 346, that judicial power “does not extend ... to administrative or legislative issues or controversies.”

Proof #2: Look at the yellow fringe flag in your state's courts.  Then look up the authority allowed to fly the yellow fringe flags in Title 4 United States Code.  The yellow fringe flag is a military flag.  Also see the 1925 Attorney General Opinion 34 Op Atty Gen 483.  (Here is another reference which I have not confirmed: 1959 President Eisenhower's Executive Order 10834 published in Federal Register at 24 FR 6865 "A military flag is a flag that resembles Fringe border on three sides").  By the way, the yellow fringe is prohibited outside the federal military, according to Army Regulation AR840-10 1-6e(3).  Then read the US Supreme Court's decision in Ex Parte Mulligan, 71 US 2, and prove to yourself that the judicial branch of a state government must protect its citizens from the federal military.  That's right, the judicial branch of any state's government must protect its citizens from the yellow fringe flag.  If your state supreme court is flying a yellow fringe flag (and it is), then you must confess that it is no longer protecting you from the flag it is flying.  

Proof #3: Lawyers are officers of the court, yet can serve in the Legislative and Executive branches of government.  There is no separation of powers.  Almost all courts are within the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. 

[I said "almost all" because there is one courtroom in your State's Supreme Court building which probably hasn't been used since the early 1940's.  It has a real US flag on the wall, not on a staff (authority that raised up from the land, not from the sea).  Its justice is not available to PERSONS.  The entire authority of the state rests in this empty courtroom, ready for a remnant to awaken it.   (Aside: Throughout the history of your once-great nation, more than two million men, with a duty to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, have marched off to secure the blessings of liberty to their as-yet-unborn posterity, never to return home.  It behooves you to preserve whatever blessings of liberty remain.  Don’t spit on their graves by flippantly discarding what they preserved.) 

Proof #4: Federal and State constitutions existed prior to the existence of bar attorneys (the American Bar Association was born in 1878 in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.), yet you cannot get the non-bar "Assistance of Counsel" guaranteed by the 6th amendment.  In fact, an attorney cannot represent an ordinary citizen.  The practice of law is an occupation of common right (meaning anyone can practice law) according to Sims v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925).  And the US Supreme Court in Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 US 238,239 refused to say whether or not states can license the practice of law.  Everything is backwards for enfranchised persons.  If you enlisted into the government, then you are prohibited from a non-bar attorney guaranteed by the 6th amendment.  Again: a licensed attorney cannot represent private people and a non-licensed attorney cannot represent public persons.  Which kind are you?  How do you suppose you enlisted? 

You are considered legally incompetent.  A judge will tell you to retain competent counsel.  Like a child, you are under a legal incapacity and must be represented.  There are many advantages to remaining incompetent.  Others will manage your affairs.  You can receive benefits such as Social Security.  And, you can only go to jail when a lawyer wants to punish you.  Like a child being given “time out”.  Here is proof:

The Supreme Court in a 1972 case Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 US 25, ruled:

"Absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for ANY offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial."

That’s right!  A Roman officer cannot bind (arrest) a Roman citizen.  Acts 22:29. 

I don’t know about other states, by in my state there is a law that made the bar association an agency of the state in 1933.  The cannon of ethics prohibits any lawyer who is an agent of the plaintiff from representing the defendant.  That's right!  A lawyer would instantly loose his license if he were to claim to represent a private citizen in any proceeding brought by the state.  

The US Supreme Court in the 1793 case Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419, confirmed that the law profession was corrupted in ancient times: "The rude and degrading league between the bar and feudal barbarism was not yet formed." 

Let him who has wisdom calculate.  Bar = barbarism. 

Proof #5: A lawyer cannot claim that you have rights.  U.S. v. Johnson, 76 F.Supp 538 is a 1947 case where a defendant "... indicated he was standing upon the right of a lawyer not to disclose the confidential communications of his clients."  

"Likewise, he claims that the judge before whom the matter was heard, assured him that his rights would be protected and lead him to believe that he would be immune from prosecution."  

He lost his case and appealed.  The appeals court determined: 

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent therein.  It is a fighting clause.  Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat.  It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor.  It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person."

Now read that again and notice "It cannot be claimed by attorney..." That's right!  An attorney cannot go into a courtroom and claim that you have rights.

Proof #6: Read the 1988 Judicial Improvements Act, Public Law 100-702 (102 STAT 4672) Section 297(a) allows federal judges to serve in state courts.  (It is interesting to note that Title 28 US Code section 297(b) refers to states as countries).  If there were judicial branches in any state this could not happen.  How did we go from a Supreme Court decision in the Mulligan case, that state courts must protect their citizens from your Federal Government, to a law that allows federal judges to sit in state courts?  Answer: your nation has been surrendered. 

Proof #7: Your nation was settled by persecuted Christians who risked death to establish a nation where they could live Biblical lives.  Where God’s commandments prohibit bearing false witness.  Where civil authority must punish those who bear false witness per Deuteronomy 19:18-19.  Where, historically, sworn testimony was taken when placing your hand on a Bible.  Where now the Supreme Court determined on March 7, 1983 in Briscoe v. Lahue, No. 81-1404, that police cannot be punished for giving perjured testimony that convicts someone.  Did you authorize your servants to lie?  Can anyone be safe in such a system?  Do you want your nation back? 

Proof #8: Back when states were states, we had a system of justice where you had a right to a jury of your peers.  A jury of your peers is a jury of 12 people who know you, see Appendix F. 

Now that you know lawyers have forced you to take oaths to their gods, and forced you to deny God's dominion here on earth, you can now appreciate what Christ said in Luke 11:52 "Woe unto you lawyers for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."   And also in Matt 23:13,33 (NIV) "You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces.  You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to... How will you escape being condemned to hell?"  Did you read that right?  Did Christ lie, or are lawyers condemned to hell? see John 8:44.  [Again I’ve underlined the word enter, so that you understand the voluntary citizenship issue].

"They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves ..."  2nd Peter 2:19 (NIV)

Proof #9: The acts of congress cannot be copyrighted, and the acts of the Courts cannot be copyrighted, yet all legal citations refer to copyrighted law books.  If you make the mistake in court, just once, of referring to one of their copyrighted law book, then you just granted in rem jurisdiction.  

Proof #10.  The Summary Judgment rule enforces the pagan maxim that “he who refuses to fight must lose.”  If you don’t respond to the specifics of the accusation, then you are automatically guilty.  Because of this automatic guilt:

You are forced against your will to fight your neighbor or lose whatever they want to take. 

You are a pawn.  You are put on a dueling field and forced to fight.  This is a form (forum) of entertainment for your Roman occupation forces.  The same adversarial traditions that fed Christians to the Lions still entertain these anti-Christs.  Their own Gladiators went to their deaths to entertain the bloodlusts of these black robed Latin speaking priests. 

Jesus gave us an example to follow when we are confronted with this summary Judgment rule.  Jesus Christ remained silent at his arraignment before Pilate (Matt 27:14, Mark 15:3-5).  This is referred to by Christians as the good confession (1st Tim 6:13).  Also see Mark 14:61. 

Jesus Christ said in Matt 5:25 and Luke 12:58 that you are to agree with your adversary least they deliver you to the judge.

1st Corinthians 6:5-7:  Shame... to go to law against another ... in front of unbelievers.  Why not rather be wronged? 

Traditionally, according to the Bible, justice was served when a thief made fourfold restitution.  Why then did Jesus Christ say in Luke 6:30 that if anyone takes what is yours you must not demand restitution?  Why did the same unchanging Jesus that warned us to judge not least ye be judged (in Matt7:1-2 while speaking to the multitudes) also tell us to judge righteous judgment (in John 7:24 while speaking in the temple)?  Why are we told not to judge our brother (Romans 14:10) yet the least esteemed in the Church are to make judgments (1st Corinthians 6:4)?  Could it be that there are two court systems?  One under Roman law and one under Christian law?  Could it be that we are not to participate with evil?  Now that you understand the alternative: Why not rather be wronged?

Early Christians did not ask for restitution.  The few that did were harshly admonished.  Example: 1st Corinthians 6:7 (NIV):

“The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.”

Is your court system for Christ or is it Anti Christ?

2nd Samuel 23:3  (King James Version) "...He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God."

According to Occult Symbols by Dr. Cathy Burns, “The Law of Karma has been symbolized by the Scales of Justice.”

Can a Judge be a Christian?  (Answer: Matt 7:1-2, Luke 6:37, Romans 2:1, Romans 14:4,10, 1st Cor 4:5, etc.)

Jesus Christ said in Matt 5:34 that Christians cannot swear oaths, and in verse 37 that any testimony beyond a yes or no answer is evil.  Is you local court for Christ or is it Anti Christ?

In your once great nation there was a time when an oath to God put an END to all argument.  Hebrews 6:16.  Is this court rule available to you in your local courtroom?

According to all encyclopedias an oath is always a religious ceremony.  Does your court require separation of their church from their state, or does your court prohibit separation of their church from their state? In their courts, you no longer place your left hand on a Bible, while saluting the black robed priest with your right hand.  I see this as worship of a false god.

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Mr. Jarvis dated September 25, 1820:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.  They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps... their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible as the other functionaries are, to the selective control.  The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."



mobpreviousbutton.jpg (2648 bytes) mobnextbutton.jpg (2403 bytes) mobappendixbutton.jpg (3341 bytes) mobtablebutton.jpg (3326 bytes)

NOTICE: Steven Dudley Miller, editor, is not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.
More & Other Information - Resource Pages
Admiralty related items Belligerent Claimant
BondsAttention Signing the Constitution Away
Citizenship / nationality related itemsEducation
Jerry KirkAware
JurisdictionLaw related items
Lewis MohrLuis Ewing
MoneyOath related items
Reading MaterialReading Room
StuffTax matters
Travel related
AntiShyster MagazineVideo
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!

Freedom-School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generally presented as "" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of used throughout. "You" is in reference to the user / visitor.

This is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and
defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation as
there is no charge for things presented. site relies on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.

The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification. is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct;
use the service in any way, or manner, that harms us or anyone connected with us or whose work is presented;
damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site)
or interfere with anyone's use and enjoyment of the website.

All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as
we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the site or material contained within.

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally identifiable information about you when you visit the site, we do collect non-identifying and aggregate information that we use to improve our Web site design and our online presence.
Visitors to this site who have Javascript enabled are tracked using Google Analytics. The type of information that Google Analytics collects about you includes data like: the type of Web browser you are using; the type of operating system you are using; your screen resolution; the version of Flash you may be using; your network location and IP address (this can include geographic data like the country, city and state you are in); your Internet connection speed; the time of your visit to the site; the pages you visit on the site; the amount of time you spend on each page of the site and referring site information. In addition to the reports we receive using Google Analytics data, the data is shared with Google. For more information on Google's privacy policies, visit:
Here is Google´s description of how Google Analytics works and how you can disable it: "Google Analytics collects information anonymously, and much like examining footprints in sand, it reports website trends without identifying individual visitors. Analytics uses its own cookie to track visitor interactions. The cookie is used to store information, such as what time the current visit occurred, whether the visitor has been to the site before, and what site referred the visitor to the web page. Google Analytics customers can view a variety of reports about how visitors interact with their website so they can improve their website and how people find it. A different cookie is used for each website, and visitors are not tracked across multiple sites. Analytics requires that all websites that use it must update their privacy policy to include a notice that fully discloses the use of Analytics. To disable this type of cookie, some browsers will indicate when a cookie is being sent and allow you to decline cookies on a case-by-case basis."

Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2019
All Rights Reserved