The entirety of this post was written by Jet Graphics
[link to groups.yahoo.com]
Why pauperization is our bane

With all due respect, the majority of Americans are burdened by the chains of socialist slavery, and know not of their agreement that allows the servant government to ignore the limits stated in the U.S. Constitution.

In Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the exclusion of paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice is a fact. According to the Statutes at Large of the United States of America, the Articles are listed as Statute #2. And there is no notation that they have been repealed nor superseded. However, they have been incorporated by reference (Art 6) into the U.S. constitution. And there are specific powers listed in the Articles, not listed in the Constitution, that the United States, in congress assembled, exercises.

EXCEPTED FROM PROTECTION

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, PAUPERS, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice EXCEPTED, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...." [Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

In support of that fact, is found in the definition of "status crimes" which directly connect to the pre-constitutional exclusion.

"Constitutional" violations of inalienable rights

" State code 124 Sections 6, and 7, authorizing the overseer of the poor to commit to the workhouse able-bodied persons, not having the means to support themselves, and who live a dissolute and vagrant life, and do not work sufficiently to support themselves, are not repugnant to the constitution, giving every man an inalienable right to defend his life and liberty." In re Nott, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 208. (Me. 1834)

Translation: compelled labor and restricted liberty is constitutional - when dealing with paupers and vagabonds.

"Act May 29, 1879, providing for the committal to the industrial school of dependent infant girls, who are beggars, wanderers, homeless, or without proper parental care, in no way violates the right of personal liberty, and is constitutional." Ex parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 (Ill. 1882)

Remember the exclusions: pauper and vagabond? Compelled labor and restricted liberty are constitutional - when dealing with paupers and vagabonds.

" An act providing for the care and custody of the person and the estate of habitual drunkards is not unconstitutional, as depriving a citizen of the right to enjoy, control, and dispose of his property, and to make contracts." Devin v. Scott, 34 Ind. 67 (Ind. 1870)

Translation: taking custody of the person and property of a drunkard (impaired person) is not unconstitutional. How long does that authority last?

LOSING YOUR CHILDREN

" ... where a minor child is abandoned by the parent, to be supported by the town, such parent shall be deemed a pauper, and be subject to the same rules and regulations as a pauper, [this statute] is not in conflict with those provisions of the constitution of the United States or of the state of Connecticut which guaranty security to the person." McCarthy v. Hinman, 35 Conn. 538 (Conn. 1869)

Translation: parent who surrenders a child to the state becomes a pauper. And parent (as well as child) becomes subject to the (Collective) State. Did you "voluntarily" enroll your children into national socialism? At birth? Now you know why you can't spank your children. They're no longer yours.

"STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. An example of a status crime is vagrancy. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect." BL 6, p.1410

" VAGRANT - At common law (!), wandering or going about from place to place by idle person who has no lawful or visible means of support and who subsisted on charity and did not work, though able to do so.... One who is apt to become a public charge through his own laziness." BL 6, p. 1549

"PAUPER - One so poor that he must be supported at public expense." BL 6, p. 1128

The lack of the financial means or property to support oneself is the prerequisite for being indigent, but as soon as one is supported at public expense, the trap door springs open, and down he falls.

A pauper was and is a status criminal. But under national socialism, he is no longer prosecuted for just "being a pauper". The "Homeless" problem is evidence of that fact. Prior to national socialism, a vagrant was arrested and incarcerated. After national socialism, no one is arrested or incarcerated for mere vagrancy because "everybody" has no domicile and have claimed to be vagabonds at law.

Is it a coincidence that many, if not all state statutes redefine "resident" to be synonymous with "vagabond"?

From the Official Code of Georgia Annotated- OCGA 40-2-1. As used in this chapter, the term:

(2) "Resident" means a person who has a permanent home or abode in Georgia to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. For the purposes of this chapter, there is a rebuttable presumption that any person who, except for infrequent, brief absences, has been present in the state for 30 or more days is a resident.

--- This is a prime example of the art of legal word twisting. Note how the phrasing sounds like the definition for domicile.

Resident = "a person" + "permanent home" .

If you quickly read the section, you might presume that it means one who is in the state 30 or more days is a resident, for motor vehicle code purposes.

But if you dissect it, the meaning is just the opposite. "A person" + "permanent home" + "present for 30 or more days" = rebuttable presumption that HE IS A RESIDENT.

In plain English, a Georgia resident is one who has a permanent home but is in the state LESS than 30 days out of a year (A transient). If one is present in the state 30 or more days out of a year, he can REBUT THE PRESUMPTION that he is a resident.

If he is "not a resident", it appears that he is an inhabitant (domiciled) at his permanent home.

And you can bet that every state has an exclusion for "non-residents".

Every American who innocently claims to be a resident and a citizen in order to enroll into national socialism and enjoy civil and political liberties has surrendered his property rights and his status at law.

CHILD SUPPORT Non-custodial child support (and ex spouse support) are directly opposite of the common law and the pre-socialist statutes enacted in harmony with it.

" Where mother is awarded the custody of her minor children on a decree of divorce from the father, he is thereby deprived of all rights to the services of the child, and consequently is freed from all liability to the mother for the care, support, and maintenance of the child." Husband v. Husband,67 Ind. 583, 33 Am.Rep. 107 (Ind.1879)

It's a "common law" axiom that one deprived of possession of a minor child is not obligated to support, unless by consent.

Of course, once enrolled in Social Security, the minor is a ward of the State, and all "contributors" are obligated to help support - especially the numbered non-custodial parent.

Want another cite in support of that idea?

" When a wife deserts her husband, and continues to live separate from him, and retains custody of a child, refusing to deliver him up to the father, who offers to support him, an action cannot be maintained against the father for the support and education of the child." Fitler v. Fitler, 2 Phila. 372 (Pa.1857)

The rights to the child, his services and custody are bound together. If the mother took the child, whether by divorce or separation, the father was excused from support. This also explains why divorce was less common (or rewarding) before 1935.

Remember, Socialism abolishes private property. Private property is land, houses, and CHATTELS (people) owned absolutely. Without private property rights, there is no absolute right of the parents to their children. Without private property rights, coverture (absolute ownership by the husband / father) of the family property ceases to function for the benefit of the next generation, hence the loss to "estate taxes" and "death taxes".

Without absolute ownership of oneself, one's labor, and the fruits of one's labor, there's nothing for government to secure - by original compact.

If one has surrendered his private property rights in order to access charity from the public treasury (entitlements), one has no rights except those "privileges" the government grants to the paupers it is supporting.

That's how the "other compact" supersedes all that we have been led to believe about the "real American law".

Pauperization is America's bane, and our greatest shame.