The Strawman & Birth Certificate Misconceptions

Sometime in the late 1970s and early 80s, the Sovereign Citizen Movement began[cite: 11]. It consisted of colonial state citizens (white people) who realized the farce of the 14th Amendment and how everyone was robbed of gold and silver through the feigned bankruptcy of House Joint Resolution 192[cite: 11].

They discovered that the "transmitting utility" they called the "strawman" was created by the birth certificate and social security number[cite: 11]. They uncovered the corporate and administrative nature of enforced laws, as well as the commercial nature of enforcement venues[cite: 11].

They began developing and utilizing commercial procedure techniques, such as U.C.C. filings and other commercial ways and means, in attempts to assert their organic state citizenship and U.S. constitutional rights[cite: 11]. The U.S. government began calling them "paper terrorists"[cite: 11].

They introduced the strawman and all thinking related to capturing, killing, or controlling the strawman/birth certificate[cite: 11]. The problem is that they cannot capture, kill, or control something that (1) does not officially exist; and (2) they did not create[cite: 11]. Since its inception, very few have had lasting success, with many facing imprisonment or selling Redemption Manuals and paperwork packages[cite: 11]. Their dilemma is that state governments are part of H.J.R. 192 because state governors secretly agreed to the repeal of the Gold Clause, trapping them in a system created for them by them[cite: 11].

Sometime in the early 90s, Moors discovered the Sovereign Citizen Movement, and since that time, it has been one of the greatest distractions faced by people waking up from mental slavery[cite: 11]. Many have been indoctrinated into sovereign citizen thinking while attempting to combine Nationality with sovereign citizen tactics[cite: 11]. Federal court cases explicitly state that the two movements are not supposed to be combined, yet attempts to mix them persist[cite: 11].

A multitude continue to fail because they fail to understand key differences and factors[cite: 11]:

1. Colonial Scope: The Sovereign Citizen Movement is only for colonial state citizens attempting to assert state citizenship status and sovereignty through commercial methods[cite: 11]. The Dred Scott case establishes that indigenous people cannot be state citizens[cite: 11].
2. Territorial Standing: Sovereign citizens attempt to assert individual sovereignty in a land foreign to their lineage and can never be more than "citizens" of different states[cite: 11].
3. Historical Track Record: Had sovereign citizen affidavits, notices, or quo warranto filings worked in the 80s or when first discovered, situations would have drastically changed decades ago[cite: 11].
4. Status & the 14th Amendment: The 14th Amendment only provided ancestors the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship[cite: 11]. With no records of application, individuals are not part of the system they are trying to escape[cite: 11].

Misinformation continues to spread claiming Prophet Noble Drew Ali started a trust to protect a "vast estate"[cite: 11]. There is no evidence that Noble Drew Ali used "sovereign citizen" tactics or engaged in commerce other than helping to start legitimate businesses[cite: 11]. The strawman did not exist in Noble Drew Ali's time[cite: 11].

Commerce remains necessary to overstand in the context of performing actual upfront commercial transactions[cite: 11]. The strawman was created by United States Inc. as a transmitting utility for corporate fictions to communicate with the living in commercial situations[cite: 11]. It is a tool owned by the United States, and disclaiming it is the first step in its proper use[cite: 11].