Rights are property. Your Rights are your property.
Rights are the most valuable possession a person owns and is basic and fundamental to all other considerations of life. If you have no right to Life you are dead. If you have no right to own and possess you can have nothing. It is an axiom of law that if one does not implicitly reserve their rights they waive them. So reserve your rights in all instances where they may be challenged or in question.

Keely
"As a subject which does not admit of verification by the prescribed canons of mechanical physics is held to be unworthy of attention, as untenable, it is fortunate for the cause of humanity that modern science has reached its ultima thule, where the tide of materialism must set back and carry with it the drift-wood of skepticism which has been accumulating during this century.

To quote the words of a physicist (at the Forest Gate Physical and Chemical Laboratories), "The door, between us and the spirit-world, which it has been declared is shut and bolted is even now ajar and a few gleams of light are struggling over the threshold from Keely's discoveries."

The artificial beacon, fed with the oil of learning, so proudly held aloft by modern science, is flickering; and many great minds are rebelling against the darkness in which it has plunged the mysteries it sought in vain to unravel. The Popery of scientific authority must have its downfall now that researchers after knowledge are making a stand and contending their right to think for themselves, instead of allowing dogmatic science to decide for them.

There is a light which sympathetic physics teaches us will never fail: - the inner light, or intuition, if we seek its guiding rays. The Spirit of Truth will lead us into all truth is the promise given by One who spake as never man spake before; and, with the foundation stones of pseudo science crumbling away, there is nothing left to fall back upon but the fortress of Revelation." [Veil Withdrawn]

"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government." [City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944]

Natural Rights
"A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, or by millions calling themselves a government." [Lysander Spooner]

New Hampshire State Constitution: Article 2. (Natural Rights) All persons have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights"; and the Preamble to the Vermont Constitution of 1776: "Whereas, all government ought to be instituted and supported, for the security and protection of the community, as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it, to enjoy their Natural Rights¦". Richard Henry Lee, author of the Letters from the Federal Farmer, and one of the first Senators from Virginia, wrote to Samuel Adams on October 5, 1787: "Natural Rights are not intended to be given up to Society; and indeed are not necessary to be given for any good social purpose."

Reserve your rights or some bully will take them away from you and you become as nothing. In which case you empower the bullies of the world and disempower your self. Look within to empower yourself (syntropy). Look without to give your power away (entropy). Do not assume the bullies of the world will honor your rights. They get their power from YOU when you waive or give to them your rights or acquiescence to their schemes, ideas and actions. By securing your rights and not giving into the false gods and their beliefs you deprive them of their power and and ability to wage war on humanity (which includes you).

Please note the second half of this Reservation of Rights below beginning with the words "By receiving, or reading or accepting or using...". This section of the Reservation of Rights is the acceptance of the document and its information offered and these concurrent obligations to acknowledge, honor, guarantee, and defend in perpetuity MY and YOUR rights - not just some of our rights but ALL of our rights and not just mine but everyone's rights. This section is as an adhesion contract much as we see when using software or certain web sites that binds a user party to its Terms of Use. [see Terms of Use] In essence what this paragraph says is that whoever you submit this to by receiving, or reading or accepting or using any information in this document they "acknowledge, honor, guarantee, and defend in perpetuity MY and YOUR rights". This is a legal and enforceable contract. Failure to perform is an actionable breach of contract. Is that not what we all want - a servant government that honors us and our rights? This adhesion contract binds everyone who receives it to join in a peaceful, cooperative and collaborative effort to "acknowledge, honor, guarantee, and defend in perpetuity YOUR and everyone else's rights".

One could use this paragraph (I hereby release copyright of it to the Public Domain) on all communications with corporations, banks, credit card companies, official documents, letters to lawyers, attorneys, mortgage companies, courts and government agencies. Bind them all to the law and a peaceful, cooperative and collaborative effort which includes acknowledging, honoring and defending your and everyone else's rights. In using the paragraph simply fill in the blanks with the name of who you send it to.

"When a waiverable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.9) (UCC 1-308 replaces UCC 1-207)

See Adhesion Contract

A note about UCC 1-308 (UCC 1-308 replaces UCC 1-207)

If you don't clearly and specifically reserve your rights you waive (give up) those rights. In other words, failure to reserve your rights, automatically enrolls you into whatever nefarious game is afoot, i.g.; adhesion contracts, constructive contracts, quasi contracts, etc.

"When a waiverable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.9) (UCC 1-308 replaces UCC 1-207)

It is claimed the "old" UCC was changed which is true. But changing a system does not change court rulings from the old system and fundamental principles. Besides that the "new" UCC has the following notation:

"Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions." Cornell Law

Which says "Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code]..." all the other forms of law, etc. STILL APPLY.

Also look into "Notice", "Notice of Protest" and "Notice of Objection" which all bear relevance to reservation of rights.

The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations, Codes, Ordinances, and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waving their rights, due to ignorance... [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]. [United States v Minister, 350 U.S. 179,187, 76 S. Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956)]

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS Unalienable Rights are the Inherent, Sovereign, Natural Rights that existed before the creation of the State, and which, being antecedent to and above the State, can never be taken away, diminished, altered, or levied by the State, except by Due Process of Law. Nor can any Unalienable Right be fundamentally removed or waived by contract, whether by non-disclosure, which is fraud and unenforceable in Law, or knowingly by sufferance, which is contrary to the Spirit of the Law and prejudicial to Sovereignty.  

The Original, Permanent, Unalienable Rights of every Man or Woman, include:  

The Right to Life, Freedom, Health and the Pursuit of Happiness  

The Right to Contract, or Not to Contract, which is Unlimited  

The Right to Earn a Living Income by being Compensated with Wages or a Salary in a Fair Exchange for one's Work  

The Right to Travel in the Ordinary Course of one's Life and Business  

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality, free from Unwarranted Invasion  

The Right to Own, and Hold Property, lawfully without Trespass  

The Right to Self-Defence when threatened with Harm, Loss, or Deceit  

The Right to Due Process of Law, with Notice and Opportunity to Defend  

The Right to be Presumed Innocent, suffering No Detention or Arrest, No Search or Seizure, without Reasonable Cause  

The Right to Remain Silent when accused, to avoid Self-Incrimination  

The Right to Equality in the eyes of the Law, and to Equal Representation  

The Right to Trial by Jury, being an Impartial Panel of one's Peers  

The Right to Appeal in Law against Conviction or Sentence, or both  

The Right to Expose Knowledge necessary to one’s Rights and Freedoms  

The Right to Peaceful Association, Assembly, Expression, and Protest  

The Right to Practice a Religion, and to have Beliefs, of one's choosing  

The Right to Love, and to Consensual Marriage with Children, as a Family  

The Right to Security from Abuse, Persecution, Tyranny, and War  

The Right to Refuse to Kill under command, by reason of Conscience  

The Right to Live in Peace and be left alone when Law-Abiding  

Surely, the most critical failure of The People is their failure to ensure the teaching and common knowledge of their Unalienable Rights. If you do not know your Rights, you effectively have none. By the path of Ignorance, whether by Apathy or Deception, The People arrive in a State of Exploitation, Oppression, and Tyranny.

JUSTICE SCALIA announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOMAS join (Supreme Court of the United States):..The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Although the amount and quality of process that our precedents have recognized as “due” under the Clause has changed considerably since the founding, see Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 28–36 (1991) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment), it remains the case that no process is due if one is not de­prived of “life, liberty, or property,” Swarthout v. Cooke, 4 KERRY v. DIN Opinion of SCALIA, J. 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) (per curiam). The first question that we must ask, then, is whether the denial of Berashk’s visa application deprived Din of any of these interests. Only if we answer in the affirmative must we proceed to consider whether the Government’s explanation afforded sufficient process. A The Due Process Clause has its origin in Magna Carta. As originally drafted, the Great Charter provided that “[n]o freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be dis­seised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” Magna Carta, ch. 29, in 1 E. Coke, The Second Part of the Insti­tutes of the Laws of England 45 (1797) (emphasis added). The Court has recognized that at the time of the Fifth Amendment’s ratification, the words “due process of law” were understood “to convey the same meaning as the words ‘by the law of the land’ ” in Magna Carta. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 276 (1856). Although the terminology associated with the guarantee of due process changed dramatically between 1215 and 1791, the general scope of the underlying rights protected stayed roughly constant. Edward Coke, whose Institutes “were read in the American Colonies by virtually every student of law,” Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 225 (1967), thoroughly described the scope of the interests that could be deprived only pursuant to “the law of the land.” Magna Carta, he wrote, ensured that, without due process, “no man [may] be taken or imprisoned”; “disseised of his lands, or tene­ments, or dispossessed of his goods, or chattels”; “put from his livelihood without answer”; “barred to have the benefit of the law”; denied “the franchises, and priviledges, which Cite as: 576 U. S. (2015) 5 Opinion of SCALIA, J. the subjects have of the gift of the king”; “exiled”; or “fore­ judged of life, or limbe, disherited, or put to torture, or death.” 1 Coke, supra, at 46–48. Blackstone’s description of the rights protected by Magna Carta is similar, al­though he discusses them in terms much closer to the “life, liberty, or property” terminology used in the Fifth Amendment. He described first an interest in “personal security,” “consist[ing] in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 125 (1769). Second, the “personal liberty of individuals” “consist[ed] in the power of loco­ motion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; with­ out imprisonment or restraint.” Id., at 130. And finally, a person’s right to property included “the free use, enjoy­ment, and disposal of all his acquisitions.” Id., at 134..before conferring constitutional status upon a previously unrecognized “liberty,” we have required “a careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest,” as well as a demonstration that the interest is “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and Cite as: 576 U. S. (2015) 7 Opinion of SCALIA, J. tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it was] sacrificed.” Glucksberg, supra, at 720–721 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)..supporting its novel theory of implied nonfundamental rights. It is certainly true that Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980), and Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990), do not entail implied fundamental rights, but this is because they do not entail implied rights at all. Vitek concerned the involuntary commitment of a prisoner, deprivation of the expressly protected right of liberty under the original understanding of the term, see Part II–A, supra. “ ‘Among the historic liberties’ protected by the Due Process Clause is the ‘right to be free from, and to obtain judicial relief for, unjustified intrusions on personal security.’ ” Vitek, supra, at 492. The same is true of Harper, which concerned forced administration of psychotropic drugs to an inmate. 494 U.S., at 214. Arguably, Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976), also addressed an interest expressly contemplated within the meaning of “liberty.” See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 125 (“The right of personal security consists in a person’s . . . reputation”). Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (June 15th, 2015)

See Also

Belief
false gods
government
I Am
Reality
Self
slavery
state police
Thomas Jefferson