By Frits van Mastright

When someone asks for or claims an exemption for something, such as a religious or medical exemption, they typically aren’t understanding the ramifications of what that really means and how it can affect them. Asking for or claiming an exemption is really asking for permission to be recognized or accepted as a certain privileged general class of people, and the privilege granted and the recognition thereof is by the government for the government’s benefit. Asking permission indicates submissiveness and surrender of one’s unalienable Rights and puts them in a lower position of servitude.

This truly was not the intention or desire of the Founders of America for their posterity, quite the opposite. What they gave us was the key of knowledge and formula to successfully express and maintain our heritage of rebellion and self-governance (liberty). Here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court said on this subject in LAIRD V. TATUM 408 US 1 (1972), to wit, “Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage.”

The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our Heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep government off the backs of the People. The Bill of Rights was added to keep the precincts of belief and expression, the press, of political and social activities FREE from surveillance. The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from Assemblies of People. The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against corrupt government.

In a nation founded on individual liberty and freedom, submissive compliance and surrender of one’s unalienable Rights seems incomprehensible, but nonetheless understandable due to the fact that the Key of Knowledge and the true common law, along with its remedies, has over the generations, been effectively erased from the minds of the people.

People today now look to the government for answers and handouts, thus giving excessive, undue and unlawful power to this beast which was originally designed with defined and vastly limited powers by The Constitution for the united States of America.
An exemption implies that the holder of the exemption either has a duty to perform; is liable for something; or is subject to a particular thing in the first place, such as government. But if you and I are not liable for or subject to the particular thing in the first place, then we can’t possible have an exemption. It doesn’t apply. In this case we would have our Rights instead. So, if we’re not liable, how can the government issue us an exemption. To suppose that they can is a preposterous supposition!

To make the point, Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition defines “Exempt” or “Exemption” as: To release, discharge, waive, relieve from liability; to relieve, excuse, or set free from a duty or service imposed upon the general class to which the individual exempted belongs; freedom from a general duty or service; immunity from a general burden, tax, or charge. This implies that one must have a liability in order to even qualify for an exemption.

To be truly free and exercise one’s liberty, they must be free of liability to government and corporations – not free from the laws of nature but of the laws of men. So, if you have a liability in the first place or you voluntarily accept the governments exemption, then you are in reality accepting a benefit or privilege from the government which they can issue and take away from you at will. Conversely, if you have no liability then the government cannot lawfully or Constitutionally take your Right(s) away from you because those are not theirs to take.



Comments are closed