DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD                (1856)    (19 Howard)            60    US      393

The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. [404]

Streets and highways are established and maintained primarily for purposes of travel by the public.
[American Jurisprudence 2d Series, Volume 39, HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND BRIDGES, § 227 Generally]
Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Smyer, 181 Ala. 121, 61 So. 354 (1913);
Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 35 Cal.2d 870, 222 P.2d 1 (1950)
(overruled on other grounds by, Rios v. Cozens, 7 Cal.3 792, 103 Cal.Rptr. 299, 499 P.2d 979 (1972));
Yale University v. City of New Haven, 104 Conn. 610, 134 A. 268, 47 A.L.R. 667 (1926);
Smith v. City of Jefferson, 161 Iowa 245, 142 N.W. 220 (1950);
Terrell v. Tracy, 312 Ky. 631, 229 S.W.2d 433 (1950);
Brenning v. Remington, 136 Neb. 883, 287 N.W. 776 (1939);
Ex Parte Duncan, 1937 OK 155, 179 Okla. 355, 65 P.2d 1015 (1937);
City of Radford v. Calhoun, 165 Va. 24, 181 S.E. 345, 100 A.L.R. 1378 (1935);
Ex Parte Dickey, 76 W.Va. 576, 85 S.E. 781 (1915);
Park Hotel Co. v. Ketchum, 184 Wis. 182, 199 N.W. 219, 33 A.L.R. 351 (1924).

Above is just an example of how the unlearned person jumps with joy at using the above cases, when in fact he is often creating his own demise when relying upon them.
People who claim to be a “people of the United States”, “citizens” or “sovereign people”, or even the “public”, thinking that is freedom when the very opposite is true.
The above case law, and all like presidents, are exclusively for areas and people (public) governed by the same US Court that makes the ruling.  Said courts can only make determination within there own jurisdiction and when one uses their case determinations one is giving a strong presumption that you are of that jurisdiction.
Being of their jurisdiction is just the opposite of being an Article IV (4) of the Articles of Confederation “free inhabitant”.
Bing a “citizen” (subject) is much the opposite of being a “free inhabitant”.
So all these people that go to a US Court and use US Case Law to attempt to prove there independence from the US governance / regulation is a full act of ignorance that is carefully manicured by the US system to gain governance.
Being independent means just that, when “not” on US Land one is independent of the written law of that same land.  So when the US hounds jump their fence and invade non-US Land do not shout their case laws to ward them off.  Such shouting is liken to standing in front of a high speed train and telling it to stop, you are going to get flattened.  Instead give notice to the conductor he does not have authority on tracks not owned by the United States of America.  Paul Hansen

Order my 5$ presentation found at  https://freeinhabitant.info/?p=17.

The US has generally valid laws, the problem lies in that they are just applied to you.

The only “public” the US Court can address is generally only those that are on their land.

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

  1. admin says:

    It is a common fact that people with high IQs often care little about trivial speeellings.

    • Kelly says:

      So where is your law degree from? In which States have you pass your bar exam?
      Just curious.

      • admin says:

        I never communicate that I am a licensed attorney, no bar association. I have been offered an association but I refused. I believe that the BAR association is a compact with the devil.
        Can a farmer be a excellent farmer without a state license, or does it change any such profession. BAR allows you to represent in a US court, I never do that, nor do I ever recommend anyone ever be represented. People read the 6th Amendment, It is a right.

  2. Dan says:

    A free inhabitant isn’t part of the US, so their a foreign person. This means that they still need to abide by US law like any other foreign citizen. Along with this, if free inhabitants existed, they would need a type of nonimmigrant visa to be in the country.

    • admin says:

      A free inhabitant needs no document to do anything that is a right, just stay off of US owned (Federal Land) land and you will not be in their jurisdiction.

    • Chong Lee says:

      You are correct a free inhabitant is not part of the US. It is a NON political status available to those living in The United States of America. A truly free man has the right to associate or not associate with another man or group of men. The Declaration of Independence expresses this. Your statement embodies the ignorant ranting of, “if you don’t like it then go somewhere else”. Those that make such a statement do not know the difference between the US and The USA and literally do not know where they are.

  3. Keenan says:

    Article IV of the Articles of Confederation does not apply to the laws of the US, considering the entirety of the Articles were taken out of commission in 1789 when the United States Constitution was deemed the supreme law of the land.

    >>I disagree, the US Const. is an addition, a added tool, to the Union, the Union was created by the Articles of Confederation. If you can order a certified copy of the Articles, that is evidence that such are active written law of the US, repealed law can not be certified.

    Even if the Articles of Confederation were still applicable today, Article IV only allowed people of different states to have the same rights as citizens in other states. An analogy you might understand is that my Alaska Driver’s License is valid in California, or any of the other 48 states. Is seems to me, you don’t actually know what a Free Inhabitant is.

    >>Only a US citizen can request permission/license from the US. Such can not be requested as a “independent man”. But I agree I do not use ‘free inhabitant’ anymore, I just keep the burden on the state to prove consent to governance.

    • Keenan says:

      You disagree? If you do a simple google search, you would find that the Articles were repealed when the Constitution was ratified. This is a fact, and facts cannot be disputed. You cannot say that you “disagree” because this is not a subjective matter. That you are willing to dispute this anyway suggests that your ignorant and uneducated mind cannot accept that you’re quite simply wrong.

      • admin says:

        Get a certified copy of the Articles of Confederation, if you do it is active law, if you can not that is evidence that it is repealed. The USC still list them as active law.

  4. Gerry says:

    I have read by several others (and it makes sense) that the original State Constitutions were put into Archive a long time ago (no State Courts but Federal districts STATE OF … courts) and the country has been Federalized similar to a ‘sheet’ of Jurisdiction? covering the whole country which permits the Federals to reach into a (Their) STATE and inject themselves into your life (Drivers License; Fishing License; Property Taxes; Zoning; Gun Laws….). We are presumed to be ‘In This State’ or ‘ Within the State’. Do you disagree with this contention as you always mention stay off Land THEY own as Their Laws only apply there?
    >>Hansen’s reply, I think what you are summing up is probably right. Much changed when Lincoln waged war in 1861, though such war was against the freemen of America way before that.

  5. Mario Dz says:

    Thank you for everything, best help I received.