ARKANSAS, USA – In an ExopoliticsTV interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre, advocate Eric Williams discussed Sovereignty, Personal Freedom, and the Grand Jury as conceived under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution.
[youtube=http://youtu.be/c6LdUSr2GpY&w=500]
Partial Transcript
A partial transcript of Eric Williams remarks is as follows:
First, why does everyone insist on making the assertion of political Sovereignty so complicated when it is actually so very simple?
Back in 1970, I was prosecuted by the IRS in Federal Court in Los Angeles, for criminal willful failure to file or pay income tax. At the trial, at the very outset, I challenged the IRS prosecutor to present evidence that I was among those he claimed had various citizenship obligations.
When my case was called, there were only five people in the court room …. After I say the prosecutor has no proof of BC in his file.
When neither the Court Judge nor the Prosecutor could establish that I had volunteered myself into being a U.S. citizen, no matter that to the best of my knowledge I was born in California. (Being born in the United States does NOT cause such individual to be designated a citizen due to such birth.) Because the IRS could not establish that I had voluntarily submitted myself to the jurisdiction of the IRS or Federal (or state) government , the Judge said he was taking the matter under consideration and that I would be notified. That was forty-four years ago, I am still waiting.
Some people assume that because my event was forty-four years ago that challenging the political jurisdiction would not now work. During the past year there have been several people who have presented letters to the IRS challenging the ability of the IRS to present evidence that they had volunteered themselves into subservience to the IRS or federal or state governments. I am not aware that any of such letters have failed to ward off the IRS or State tax collectors. Some of these individuals are still using their DL and SS# under the Law of necessity recognized by the Supreme Court in a case called Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892?), where the Supreme Court wrote that when the strict application of the letter of a law or Constitutional provision would result in an absurd outcome, the law of Constitutional provision must be applied in a manner to avoid the absurd outcome.
My challenge was and is based on the 13th and 14th Amendments, which have not changed.
Continue reading here