(Thanks, M. :)

Reader MA returns to say:

***************************************************************************

Re: Reader: 'Any person living in the United S....

This is Reader MA again,

The use of words is critical in knowing how to navigate this existence.

Persons, for those that know, we would not want to be persons, as persons are given privileges.

The constitution is for the people, and if any are astute enough to find the court cases some will disclose the fact that the people who can prove their life and heritage exists prior to the creation of the constitution are considered sovereign.

That's what bar card people did to the rest of us.
The pretend the rest of us just spontaneously exist out of some random chemical process after the creation of the constitution and therefore are persons, and thus the Citizens vs United where corporations are persons, and there are many court cases in your state that will point out municipalities are persons and can be sued under title 18, but state agencies are of the state constitution of the people and cannot be sued, but the individual servant working within it can be sued in their individual capacity.

The thing about being here, living here, alive here, is when you know just a few of the word games, your spoken word is different from the people around you.

I do not use person for me nor anyone I describe.
People is always the word of choice when speaking and writing because the people are sovereign, we are a state, legal definition of state is People, not person.

A group of people can form a state, a group of persons can be controlled by a group of people who claim a status over what they call persons, and they use their claimed status to oppress the group they call persons.

Knowing the difference makes them pull all stops to pull you back to the blue pill, even doing what they did to Kanye, and try to put you in a mental institution for 'knowing' things they do not want you to know.

They cannot cover the knowledge from everyone.
The hundredth monkey theory is there for a reason, and it doesn't just deal with monkeys. The collective conscience will all know, as the tipping point is reached.

As for existence prior to the creation of the constitution; I know I am the life created from two lives that came together, and that can only occur if they are created from two lives that came together to create them.

Now if there is clones, and cyborgs in artificial skin, or any other creations among us, those creations can be persons created after the creation of the constitution, but the bar card people will have to show their authority to decide my life is artificial and not sovereign and exist from the lives that come before me that created me.

They can't and won't, so that's a moot statement.

Anyway the constitution doesn't give us what we don't already have, and the people that wrote it didn't give us what they had, we had it too, we just came later and see that they wrote some of it down.

I am not bound by anything anyone writes without my expressed consent.

in that regard, their constitution is just a piece of paper.
If it has my signature on it, then it's a contract.

Without my signature, I am not bound to it, and it does nothing for me. My rights are not protected by it, nor taken from me by it's existence or destruction.

***************************************************************************