No SSN = No Income (Not!)
Rick Bryan
That would be a tough one to top Dan.
Rick
Dan Evans wrote:
> Earlier this month, some nut (you know who you are) claimed that a letter
> from the Social Security Administration stated that "a person with no Social
> Security number has no taxable income." I recently found the source of this
> absurd piece of misinformation.
>
> At http://announce.com/~behold/pamphlet/ssa-ltr.htm you can find a graphic
> image of a letter dated January 10, 1986, from Penny Payton, Claims
> Representative of the Social Security Administration at its Sioux Falls, South
> Dakota, office. She is writing to one Jerome T. Schiefen, who apparently
> raised some questions about Social Security numbers. The relevant part of the
> letter is as follows:
>
> "The Internal Revenue Service uses social security numbers as taxpayer
> identification numbers. P.L. 87-397 was passed on October 5, 1961 requiring
> each taxpayer to furnish an identifying number for tax reporting purposes.
> Because of this, employers must have the social security numbers of their
> workers to legally report their earnings. They could not continue to employ an
> individual for whom they could not legally report earnings.
>
> "A bank or lending institution is not governed by social security rules but I
> doubt very much if they would refuse a loan simply because the applicant had
> no social security number. However, a person with no social security number
> would have no taxable income (see paragraph above) and I am sure this fact
> would have a bearing on their decision."
>
> (P.L. 87-397 added section 6109 to the Internal Revenue Code, and the
> regulations under section 6109 have already been quoted to this group as
> requiring applications for social security numbers for employees.)
>
> As a proposition of law, the claim that "a person with no social security
> number has no taxable income" would now get my vote as the most blatant
> and ludicrous misrepresentation by a tax protestor, but I am not sure that the
> nominations are closed. Anyone else want to suggest a more ridiculous lie
> posted to this newsgroup?
>
> Dan Evans **********************
> *This is not legal advice unless
> *you agreed to pay for it.
> *http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
Center for Constitutional Law
Dan Evans wrote
> (snip)They could not continue to employ an
>individual for whom they could not legally report earnings.
Apparently this was from a letter from an SS employee. Well,
that particular sentence is an outright lie.
Taco Bell was sued by the EEOC on behalf of an Arizona youth who
had no SSN and refused to get one, due religious objections.
Taco Bell would not hire. After a long suit and battle over the
"requirement" of an SSN, Taco Bell finally gave in and paid back
pay too.
Taco Bell asked the SS Administration via registered mail giving
x number of days fro a response, upon which SS defaulted by
silence. In law silence is agreement.
Same way any citizen can stop paying taxes, by first asking the
IRS point blank, via registered mail, if he liable to pay being
a private American citizen, and not having given up or knowingly
waived any Constitutional right, giving x number of days for
them to answer, since no law defining WHO the liable taxpayer
is, they will not (cannot) answer, drafts an affidavit stating
that IRS defaulted on their duty to respond, files the affidavit
stating the IRS's agreement by their silence (failure to answer
when they have a duty to do so)that he has no tax liability with
the court for a default judgment. The default judgment erases
any presumed duty that may have existed for income tax
liability, under the doctrine of "estoppel by acquiescence". No
more taxes !
Finally, if you don't believe it, next time you stop by Taco
Bell pick up an application. You'll see that since the case,
they now say "Optional" where the SSN is requested.
There are many case now where people are defeating the IRS.
They just don't get media publicity. They obviously, like the
tax profiteers in this group, don't want you to know the truth.
Dan Evans
Earlier this month, some nut (you know who you are) claimed that a letter
from the Social Security Administration stated that "a person with no Social
Security number has no taxable income." I recently found the source of this
absurd piece of misinformation.
At http://announce.com/~behold/pamphlet/ssa-ltr.htm you can find a graphic
image of a letter dated January 10, 1986, from Penny Payton, Claims
Representative of the Social Security Administration at its Sioux Falls, South
Dakota, office. She is writing to one Jerome T. Schiefen, who apparently
raised some questions about Social Security numbers. The relevant part of the
letter is as follows:
"The Internal Revenue Service uses social security numbers as taxpayer
identification numbers. P.L. 87-397 was passed on October 5, 1961 requiring
each taxpayer to furnish an identifying number for tax reporting purposes.
Because of this, employers must have the social security numbers of their
workers to legally report their earnings. They could not continue to employ an
individual for whom they could not legally report earnings.
"A bank or lending institution is not governed by social security rules but I
Gwailo
Who is this idiot who calls himself: "Center for Constitutional
Law"? Is he too ashamed to use his real name?
> Dan Evans (clip) They could not continue to employ an
> >individual for whom they could not legally report earnings.
>
> CCL : Apparently this was from a letter from an SS employee.
> Well,
> that particular sentence is an outright lie. Taco Bell was sued by
> the EEOC on behalf of an Arizona youth who had no SSN and refused
> to get one, due religious objections. Taco Bell would not hire.
> After a long suit and battle over the
> "requirement" of an SSN, Taco Bell finally gave in and paid back
> pay too.
>
> Taco Bell asked the SS Administration via registered mail giving
> x number of days fro a response, upon which SS defaulted by
> silence. In law silence is agreement.
This is preposterous. In law silence is *not* agreement unless there
is a duty to speak, which is not the case here. The wacko says he's
King of the World -- do you really think that he gets the crown if
eveyone else stays silent (out of boredom or pity?)
> Same way any citizen can stop paying taxes, by first asking the
> IRS point blank, via registered mail, if he liable to pay being
> a private American citizen, and not having given up or knowingly
> waived any Constitutional right, giving x number of days for
> them to answer,
The wacko says "Kings of the World don't have to pay taxes."
> since no law defining WHO the liable taxpayer is
Except Code Section 1, Regs. 1.1-1(b), many cases holding tax
protesters liable or affirming their convictions.
> , they will not (cannot) answer, drafts an affidavit stating
> that IRS defaulted on their duty to respond, files the affidavit
> stating the IRS's agreement by their silence (failure to answer
> when they have a duty to do so)
There is no such duty on the part of the government or anyone else
to respond to every nutcase. An affidavit is just "I say so..." on
paper -- it's not a magic spell.
> that he has no tax liability with the court for a default
> judgment.
You don't get a default judgment just by giving some silly
afffidavit to a court clerk. You have to file a lawsuit, and if you
serve it properly it will be answered, you will be thrown out of
court, and you will be fined for wasting everyones time with
nonsense.
> The default judgment erases any presumed duty that may have
> existed for income tax liability, under the doctrine of "estoppel
> by acquiescence". No more taxes!
Dream on, Napoleon.
> Finally, if you don't believe it, next time you stop by Taco
> Bell pick up an application. You'll see that since the case,
> they now say "Optional" where the SSN is requested.
I believe Taco Bell may say this on the application, but it has
nothing to do with your lunatic concept of legal procedure.
> There are many case now where people are defeating the IRS.
> They just don't get media publicity. They obviously, like the
> tax profiteers in this group, don't want you to know the truth.
Why don't you post them here? I think they don't exist except in
your deluded imagination. BTW, someone defeating a criminal
indictment on the ground they were so stupid or crazy that they had
no intent to evade taxes is hardly a victory, especially when they
lose all they own to civil tax claims.
Do you see now what happens when you forget to take your Thorazine?
'Gwailo
Gwailo
John Gill
Center for Constitutional Law wrote:
>
> Taco Bell asked the SS Administration via registered mail giving
> x number of days fro a response, upon which SS defaulted by
> silence. In law silence is agreement.
>
Which law is this? What country do you live in?
In my country we have a contract law term called "meeting of the minds,"
and another one called "mutuality of ascent."
So, in your country one signifies his or her agreement by silence? That
is unusual!
Where do you live?
--
- John J. Gill
GILL & COMPANY, CPAs
---------------------------------------------
- TAX SOLUTIONS: IRS problems, international
tax issues, general tax practice.
- TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS: remote access netwk'g
---------------------------------------------
http://www.taxlaws.com jg...@taxlaws.com
John Gill
Gwailo wrote:
>
> Who is this idiot who calls himself: "Center for Constitutional
> Law"? Is he too ashamed to use his real name?
>
I think it is a "Brooks Martin" clone, or at least a wannabe!
Center for Constitutional Law
Gwailo wrote:
>Who is this idiot who calls himself: "Center for Constitutional
>Law"? Is he too ashamed to use his real name?
>
Idiot ? Sir, I believe you have just committed the crime of
liable. I'll be looking into that, and you will hear from me in
that regard.
>
> This is preposterous. In law silence is *not* agreement unless
> there is a duty to speak, which is not the case here. The
wacko
> says he's King of the World -- do you really think that he
gets the > crown if eveyone else stays silent (out of boredom or
pity?)
>
The SS Administration administers the SS laws. Therefor they
are in fact under a duty to answer the inquiries, regarding
those laws, of any citizen to whom those laws may be applied.
Same is true of all such govrnment agency have that
responsibility. I gather from your response that you are of
the opinion (and that's all it can be) that they (the SSA) are
under no duty to answer citizen inquiries regard SS law,
regardless of the content of the inquiry ? Since that would be
absolutely incorrect, I hope any non-legal-professionals who may
be reading this will place any credibility in your ignorant
responses without checking them out for factuality first.
>> Same way any citizen can stop paying taxes, by first asking
the
>> IRS point blank, via registered mail, if he liable to pay
being
>> a private American citizen, and not having given up or
knowingly
>> waived any Constitutional right, giving x number of days for
>> them to answer,
>
>The wacko says "Kings of the World don't have to pay taxes."
>
That is correct, Sir. And it is exactly what the American
Revolution gave to evry American citizen as his heritage,
"People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly
belonged to the King by his perogative".
>> since no law defining WHO the liable taxpayer is
>
>Except Code Section 1, Regs. 1.1-1(b), many cases holding tax
>protesters liable or affirming their convictions.
>
First of all the truly knowledgable citizen handling his/her
affairs in the proper manner and methodology, never gets called
to court and never files or pays income taxes, all by the
agreement of the IRS.
The code and regs you cited do not define WHO the taxpayer is.
There is no such specification in the code, regardless of your
personal interpretation. Most of those who go to jail have been
misinformed by of both legal procedure and of techniques fro
preventing the IRS from taking them that far. The attachment
will show examples of one such technique. Thanks for biting the
hook.
And as I stated, any citizen such as noted above, may prove your
replies to be the self serving deceptions that they are, by
simply asking the IRS, as I have noted in the attachment. They
will only receive silence, where there IS a duty to respond.
Such silence envokes the doctrine of "estoppel by acquiescence".
Go back to law school you obviously may benefit from an intense
refresher.
>> , they will not (cannot) answer, drafts an affidavit stating
>> that IRS defaulted on their duty to respond, files the
affidavit
>> stating the IRS's agreement by their silence (failure to
answer
>> when they have a duty to do so)
>
>There is no such duty on the part of the government or anyone
> else to respond to every nutcase. An affidavit is just "I say
so..."
> on paper -- it's not a magic spell.
>
I am truely amazed at what must be either your plain unashamed
ignorance, or your open dishonesty. Do you deny that our sytem
of law is presumptive. As dumb as you appear to be, you may
have to look the word up. Anyway, the "affidavit" is how police
officers present complaints. It would be a stupid effort for me
to sit here and debate the place "affidavits" in law, when it is
so basic as to be obvious to even the wackos and idiots, which
you seem to call everyone who speaks any truth, that your
seemingly limited and distorted legal knowledge (and I use the
word very grudgingly) is unable to properly refute. Are you
truly a lawyer, or just an ego-tripping legal list lurker ?
Never mind.
For those who are reading GWANO's responses and putting any
credibility in what he says, God help you.
Factually, sworn affidavits create legal presumption of truth.
Where there is a duty to answer, such as when one issues a
question of law of that law's adminstrative agency, or the IRS
sends you a letter of demand, and you issue a counter-demand
(see UCC 3-500 et seq), silence on the part of the respondent,
IS ACCEPTANCE (agreement). It is also a binding agreement,
which estopps the respondent (without the right of subsequent
recourse). In such a case the presenter of the counter-demand
may submitt a pleading (affidavit), petitioning the court,
setting out the circumstances, points of authorities, and
exhibiting the unanswered instrument(s), with their terms and
conditions, to the superior court or district court of proper
jurisdiction, for a default judgment. GWAILO seems to want
uninformed readers to stay ignorant so he can continue to profit
off of that ignorance of the law, just like the IRS does.
>> that he has no tax liability with the court for a default
>> judgment.
>
>You don't get a default judgment just by giving some silly
>afffidavit to a court clerk. You have to file a lawsuit, and if
you
>serve it properly it will be answered, you will be thrown out
of
>court, and you will be fined for wasting everyones time with
>nonsense.
>
While this is not an outright LIE, it is an outright deception.
The key word is "silly". No, I too would not suggest submitting
anything silly to any court. However, the truth is, that based
upon it's merits, the court WILL grant the requested default
judgment. One does NOT have to file a lawsuit. There is no
such requirement in statute nor civil procedure. His
contention that, "You have to file a lawsuit", that IS an
outright LIE.
The IRS (and other commercial creditors) routinely bypass the
burden of a cumbersome lawsuit by using the presumptive powers
of the affidavit. Depending upon the silence of the "taxpayer",
the IRS is then able to demand a debt which the taxpayer does
NOT owe, and thereby bypass the time and expense and effort of
"GWAILO's lawsuit", by obtaining a default judgment against the
taxpayer, who failed to "timely respond" (in x number of days).
"...if you serve it properly it will be answered." Well GWAILO,
in 1966 the Federal Tax Lien Act was passed. What it
accomplished was to place the IRS collection practices under the
laws of the UCC. Heres a quote from the legislative history
about that Act:
"It represents an effort to adjust the provisions in the
internal,rev-
enue laws relating to the collection of taxes of delinquent
persons
to the more recent developments in commercial practice
(permitted and protected under State law) and to deal with a
multitude of technical problems which have arisen over the past
50 years".
The "multitude of technical problems" arose from court defeats
of the income tax demands by law knowledgeable pro se citizens
and corporations, as well as the time and expenses of court
actions brought by slow GWAILO style lawsuits. The 1966 Act
gave the IRS the ability to bypass the court hearings to obtain
judgments (which they frequently lost), by using the provisions
of the UCC
(Uniform Commercial Code). Without the fact that SILENCE is
agreement where their is a duty respond, their inclusion under
the umbrella of the UCC would be useless to the IRS.
Consequently, when the IRS sends a demand, the citizen may also
use the UCC to his equal advantage (the law is for everyone),
instead of using the expensive, parasitic, tax profiteering,
mis-information giving, CPAs and Attorneys, who get rich and
thrive off of the criminal misery inflicted by the IRSs
extortion and fraud. Instead, under the same UCC umbrella, the
citizen may refute the IRS's demand as invalid, and require
proof of liability for the income tax, by merely requesting that
they cited the statutes which makes such a citizen liable. The
IRS cannot answer within the given x-number of days, as REQUIRED
by UCC provisions, and therefore they default by silence and are
estopped from further collection. The default judgment is mere
icing on the cake. No CPAs, Lawyers, and their fees, no offers
in compromise, no levies, no payment plans, no taxes. If the
IRS should press it, they never do, your administrative record
will blow them out out court.
Parasitic lawyers and CPAs, and the IRS don't want the public to
know this stuff. But don't take my word John Q. Public, check
it out. Then check out. (see the attachment)
Since GWAILO and his parasite cohorts wish to insult any truth
giver who appears on the net, I have attached an example of the
specific UCC law that the citizen may consult, as well as an
example of the letter of counter-demand. So-called "Tax
Protestor" proponents of tax freedom will charge $$ for this
educational material which I am providing free of charge.
Verify what is seen. Don't take anyone's word on tax issues.
Use the law library to verify whatever with regards to the law.
Remember no matter who helps you, YOU are ultimately
responsible.
There are many honest Lawyers, however, where one find a group
of them who PROFIT off the IRSs illegal application of the law
,it is wise to use EXTREME caution in dealing with such
opportunist.
>> Finally, if you don't believe it, next time you stop by Taco
>> Bell pick up an application. You'll see that since the case,
>> they now say "Optional" where the SSN is requested.
>
>I believe Taco Bell may say this on the application, but it has
>nothing to do with your lunatic concept of legal procedure.
>
More name calling, how juvenile, and professional too.
What is does have to do with is there is no requirement for an
employer to have one's SSN, because there is no requirement for
one to have an SSN.
>> There are many case now where people are defeating the IRS.
>> They just don't get media publicity. They obviously, like
the
>> tax profiteers in this group, don't want you to know the
truth.
>
>Why don't you post them here? I think they don't exist except
in
>your deluded imagination. BTW, someone defeating a criminal
>indictment on the ground they were so stupid or crazy that they
> had no intent to evade taxes is hardly a victory, especially
when
> they lose all they own to civil tax claims.
>
You asked for it, you got it. And so does everyone else !
There is an excellent example whose transcript includes all of
the arguments, made in court, which GWAILO and associates
continually dismiss as wacko, protestor, lunatic, idiot, Etc.
In your browser do a search on "Lloyd Long" one should find
about 15 listings, some of which the transcript is for sale,
don't buy. Get one of the free ones. Great for pre-exit
background study and preparation. I will post it as an
attachment to a seperate message.
400+ out of 700+ pages of tax free reality. Yes one can
lawfully stop filing and paying without GWAILO's "help".
begin 666 UCC-Note.txt
<encoded_portion_removed>
end
Gwailo
Center for Constitutional Law wrote:
> Gwailo Who is this idiot who calls himself: "Center for Constitutional Law"? Is he too ashamed to use his real name?
>
> CCL (ashamed to use his real name) Idiot ? Sir, I believe you have just committed the crime of liable. I'll be looking into that, and you will hear from me in that regard.
It's a "tort", not a crime. You can't even spell it. Truth is a defense.
> G: This is preposterous. In law silence is *not* agreement unless there is a duty to speak, which is not the case here. The wacko says he's King of the World -- do you really think that he gets the crown if eveyone else stays silent (out of boredom or pity?)
>
> The SS Administration administers the SS laws. Therefor they
> are in fact under a duty to answer the inquiries, regarding
> those laws, of any citizen to whom those laws may be applied.
"Huh, officer, why can't I run a red light, huh? Can't you tell me why I can't run a red light, huh? Why is red on top and green on the bottom, huh? I want green on top."
> CCL: Same is true of all such govrnment agency have that
> responsibility. I gather from your response that you are of
> the opinion (and that's all it can be) that they (the SSA) are
> under no duty to answer citizen inquiries regard SS law,
> regardless of the content of the inquiry? Since that would be
> absolutely incorrect, I hope any non-legal-professionals who may
> be reading this will place any credibility in your ignorant
> responses without checking them out for factuality first.
>
> CCL: Same way any citizen can stop paying taxes, by first asking the IRS point blank, via registered mail, if he liable to pay being a private American citizen, and not having given up or knowingly waived any Constitutional right, giving x number of days for them to answer,
> >
> Gwailo: The wacko says "Kings of the World don't have to pay taxes."
>
> King CCL: That is correct, Sir. And it is exactly what the American
> Revolution gave to evry American citizen as his heritage,
> "People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly
> belonged to the King by his perogative".
I suppose we'll be seeing your face on our currency any day now. Starting with the three dollar bill ...
> K o W: since no law defining WHO the liable taxpayer is
> >
> >Except Code Section 1, Regs. 1.1-1(b), many cases holding tax
> >protesters liable or affirming their convictions.
>
> K o W: First of all the truly knowledgable citizen handling his/her affairs in the proper manner and methodology, never gets called to court and never files or pays income taxes, all by the agreement of the IRS.
Yup. Too busy counting the daisies on the ceiling of the padded cell.
> K o W: The code and regs you cited do not define WHO the taxpayer is. There is no such specification in the code, regardless of your personal interpretation. Most of those who go to jail have been misinformed by of both legal procedure and of techniques fro preventing the IRS from taking them that far. The attachment will show examples of one such technique. Thanks for biting the hook.
"All citizens, wherever resident are liable to the tax" -- oh, I see. If it doesn't name you, you don't have to pay taxes. I think you're confusing the tax code with a telephone book.
> K o W: And as I stated, any citizen such as noted above, may prove your replies to be the self serving deceptions that they are, by simply asking the IRS, as I have noted in the attachment. They will only receive silence, where there IS a duty to respond. Such silence envokes the doctrine of "estoppel by acquiescence". Go back to law school you obviously may benefit from an intense refresher
Tell the wall you're "King of the World". If the wall doesn't answer, it must be true. (But what if the wall did answer...?)
> >> , they will not (cannot) answer, drafts an affidavit stating that IRS defaulted on their duty to respond, files the affidavit stating the IRS's agreement by their silence (failure to answer when they have a duty to do so)
> >
> Gwailo: There is no such duty on the part of the government or anyone
> else to respond to every nutcase. An affidavit is just "I say so..." on paper -- it's not a magic spell.
> >
> K o W: I am truely amazed at what must be either your plain unashamed
> ignorance, or your open dishonesty. Do you deny that our sytem
> of law is presumptive. As dumb as you appear to be, you may
> have to look the word up.
A presumptuous assumption.
> K o W: Anyway, the "affidavit" is how police officers present complaints. It would be a stupid effort for me to sit here and debate the place "affidavits" in law, when it is so basic as to be obvious to even the wackos and idiots, which you seem to call everyone who speaks any truth, that your seemingly limited and distorted legal knowledge (and I use the word very grudgingly) is unable to properly refute. Are you truly a lawyer, or just an ego-tripping legal list lurker ? Never mind.
Are you truely a center for constitutional law? If you are a center, where are your sides?
> K o W: For those who are reading GWANO's responses and putting any
> credibility in what he says, God help you. Factually, sworn affidavits create legal presumption of truth.
Nonsense. A nut with a notary is still a nut. If you write "the moon is made of green cheese" and get it notarized, that does not turn Luna into Limberger.
> K o W: Where there is a duty to answer, such as when one issues a
> question of law of that law's adminstrative agency, or the IRS sends you a letter of demand, and you issue a counter-demand (see UCC 3-500 et seq), silence on the part of the respondent, IS ACCEPTANCE (agreement). It is also a binding agreement, which estopps the respondent (without the right of subsequent recourse). In such a case the presenter of the counter-demand
> may submitt a pleading (affidavit), petitioning the court, setting out the circumstances, points of authorities, and exhibiting the unanswered instrument(s), with their terms and conditions, to the superior court or district court of proper jurisdiction, for a default judgment.
Have you actually tried this? What happened (when they finished laughing?) Did they do to you what the Tax Court did in Hezel v. Commissioner, Docket Tax Ct. Dkt. No. 20862-96 (1997), where someone tried this affidavit/UCC mumbo jumbo? Judgment granted in favor of IRS. (Hezel tried again in Federal District Court, and got thrown out there too. 80 AFTR2d Par. 97-5059.) Or Narramore v Commissioner T.C. Memo. 1996-11, where a protester's "Affidavit of Revocation and Rescission" was met with a $7,500 fine for "arguments no more than stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this Court and all other courts which have heard such contentions."
> K o W: GWAILO seems to want uninformed readers to stay ignorant so he can continue to profit off of that ignorance of the law, just like the IRS does.
>
> ... that he has no tax liability with the court for a default judgment.
> >
> Gwailo: You don't get a default judgment just by giving some silly afffidavit to a court clerk. You have to file a lawsuit, and if you serve it properly it will be answered, you will be thrown out of court, and you will be fined for wasting everyones time with nonsense.
>
> K o W: While this is not an outright LIE, it is an outright deception.
> The key word is "silly". No, I too would not suggest submitting
> anything silly to any court.
Sorry, your majesty. I meant "frivolous".
> K o W: However, the truth is, that based upon it's merits, the court WILL grant the requested default judgment. One does NOT have to file a lawsuit. There is no such requirement in statute nor civil procedure. His contention that, "You have to file a lawsuit", that IS an outright LIE.
Darn those lying old Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
> K o W: The IRS (and other commercial creditors) routinely bypass the
> burden of a cumbersome lawsuit by using the presumptive powers
> of the affidavit. Depending upon the silence of the "taxpayer",
> the IRS is then able to demand a debt which the taxpayer does
> NOT owe, and thereby bypass the time and expense and effort of
> "GWAILO's lawsuit", by obtaining a default judgment against the
> taxpayer, who failed to "timely respond" (in x number of days).
>
> "...if you serve it properly it will be answered." Well GWAILO,
> in 1966 the Federal Tax Lien Act was passed.
Pub. L. 89-719, now incorporated into about 20 sections of 26 USC, including 6321, 6331, etc.
> K o W: What it accomplished was to place the IRS collection practices under the laws of the UCC. Heres a quote from the legislative history
> about that Act:
>
> "It represents an effort to adjust the provisions in the internal, revenue laws relating to the collection of taxes of delinquent persons to the more recent developments in commercial practice (permitted and protected under State law) and to deal with a multitude of technical problems which have arisen over the past 50 years".
>
> The "multitude of technical problems" arose from court defeats of the income tax demands by law knowledgeable pro se citizens and corporations, as well as the time and expenses of court actions brought by slow GWAILO style lawsuits. The 1966 Act gave the IRS the ability to bypass the court hearings to obtain judgments (which they frequently lost), by using the provisions of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Without the fact that SILENCE is agreement where their is a duty respond, their inclusion under
> the umbrella of the UCC would be useless to the IRS.
No reference to "UCC" or "uniform commercial" in tax code. This is a make-believe conflation. See Straight v. Royal, 79 AFTR2d Par. 97-813 (10th Cir BAP, 1997): "Article 9 of the UCC does not apply to statutory liens like the one the IRS obtains under 26 U.S.C. section 6321 ... Perfection of a federal tax lien is instead governed by the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act." K o W's UCC ritual was tried, lost, in Smith v. Bullard, 78 AFTR2d Par. 96-5207 (S.D. W. Va., 1996).
> K o W: Consequently, when the IRS sends a demand, the citizen may also
> use the UCC to his equal advantage (the law is for everyone),
> instead of using the expensive, parasitic, tax profiteering, mis-information giving, CPAs and Attorneys, who get rich and thrive off of the criminal misery inflicted by the IRSs extortion and fraud. Instead, under the same UCC umbrella, the citizen may refute the IRS's demand as invalid, and require proof of liability for the income tax, by merely requesting that
> they cited the statutes which makes such a citizen liable. The IRS cannot answer within the given x-number of days, as REQUIRED by UCC provisions, and therefore they default by silence and are estopped from further collection. The default judgment is mere icing on the cake. No CPAs, Lawyers, and their fees, no offers in compromise, no levies, no payment plans, no taxes.
It's nice and quiet here at Happydale.
> K o W: If the IRS should press it, they never do, your administrative record will blow them out out court. Parasitic lawyers and CPAs, and the IRS don't want the public to know this stuff. But don't take my word John Q. Public, check it out. Then check out. (see the attachment)
>
> Since GWAILO and his parasite cohorts wish to insult any truth giver who appears on the net, I have attached an example of the specific UCC law that the citizen may consult, as well as an example of the letter of counter-demand. So-called "Tax Protestor" proponents of tax freedom will charge $$ for this educational material which I am providing free of charge.
> Verify what is seen. Don't take anyone's word on tax issues. Use the law library to verify whatever with regards to the law. Remember no matter who helps you, YOU are ultimately responsible.
This is the first think you've said that made sense. (clip)
'Gwailo
Jenn e fir
>Idiot ? Sir, I believe you have just committed the crime of
>liable. I'll be looking into that, and you will hear from me in
>that regard.
R.O.F.L.M.A.O. (to quote Brooks) If you're going to threaten someone at least
buy a dictionary...I've searched everywhere for the Crime of Liable.
-----------------
Jennifer
rmacd...@microd.com
On 11/29/97 8:02PM, in message <65qdu8$k...@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Center for
Constitutional Law" <tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Gwailo wrote:
>
> >Who is this idiot who calls himself: "Center for Constitutional
> >Law"? Is he too ashamed to use his real name?
> Idiot ? Sir, I believe you have just committed the crime of
> liable. I'll be looking into that, and you will hear from me in
> that regard.
Anybody need a Second? I always thought reinstituting the "Code Duello" would
certainly raise the level of political discourse.
--
Richard A. Macdonald, E.A.
SSG(Ret), USA, ADA, (16P34)
Dedicated follower of Fra. Luca Pacciolli, Master Juggler.
"Gib mir Schokolate und niemand wird verletzt!!!"
--
"The way to a mans heart is through his sternum." ====)--------------
John Gill
Center for Constitutional Law wrote:
>
>
> >Who is this idiot who calls himself: "Center for Constitutional
> >Law"? Is he too ashamed to use his real name?
> >
>
> Idiot ? Sir, I believe you have just committed the crime of
> liable. I'll be looking into that, and you will hear from me in
> that regard.
>
Actully, in lible law, truth is an absolute defense.
Center for Constitutional Law
Joseph G. Adams wrote in message ...
> (snip)
>I'm a big fan of the "fringe on the flag = admiralty court"
argument.
>
I just finished reading the definition of what the American flag
is in Title 4 USC. There is no fringe.
I seek knowledge to fill a gap of my own ignorance. Since you
have mentioned it here, please, if you have such knowledge and
will, educate me on the significance of the fringe around the
flag.
When did it first appear, in our court rooms ?
Why is it universal inside all of our public forums and chambers
?
What exactly DOES it signify ?
HELP !
Brad Barnhill
"Center for Constitutional Law" <tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
First, get a copy of the Opinion of the Attorney General in Volume 34,
printed in 1926, page 483 to 487, OAG of May 15, 1925.
Next, go look at 1 Am Jur (American Jurisprudence) under Admiralty.
Next, go look at U.S. v $5,372.85, 283 F.Supp 904 (1968)
Next, look over 28 USC 2461(b) and the Supplement to Rule C.
Next, look over Federal Rule 9(h).
This will give you a running start.
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
e:bra...@chv.mindspring.com
========================================================
"Let common sense and honesty have fair play, and they
will soon set things to rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786.
http://pages.prodigy.com/jefferson_quotes/
========================================================
Trevor Baycliff
Joseph G. Adams wrote:
> > Earlier this month, some nut (you know who you are) claimed that a letter
> > from the Social Security Administration stated that "a person with no Social
> > Security number has no taxable income." I recently found the source of this
> > absurd piece of misinformation.
> >
> > image of a letter dated 1986, from Penny Payton, Claims Representative of the
contact the SSA and obtain your exemption certificate.
David Whitley
John Gill wrote:
> Gwailo wrote:
> >
> > Who is this idiot who calls himself: "Center for Constitutional
> > Law"? Is he too ashamed to use his real name
yes, "Brooks" is now an underground sovran citizen.
>
Jose Diaz Santiago
Center for Constitutional Law wrote:
> >individual for whom they could not legally report earnings.
> had no SSN and refused to get one, due religious objections.
> Taco Bell would not hire. After a long suit and battle over the
> "requirement" of an SSN, Taco Bell finally gave in and paid back
> pay too.
Yes, Yahwah the holy one has decreed no DEVIL numbers for this fast food
conglomerate. I am a Taco Bell employee who has special tax withholdings
to cover all federalist citizens. it is so unfair.
Center for Constitutional Law
Joseph G. Adams wrote in message ...
>
>The history and meaning of fringe on the flag is exhaustively
>reviewed in McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647 (W.D.Mo. 1997).
>
>You can find this case in your local law library, and it is
also
>online at: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
>
Went there and read both case. Now will you answer the
questions:
David Marc Nieporent
In <65qdu8$k...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Center for Constitutional Law <tim...@primenet.com> claimed:
>Gwailo wrote:
>>Who is this idiot who calls himself: "Center for Constitutional
>>Law"? Is he too ashamed to use his real name?
>Idiot ? Sir, I believe you have just committed the crime of
>liable.
Well, I think you have just committed the tort of being unable to
spell.
>I'll be looking into that, and you will hear from me in
>that regard.
Gee, I'll bet he's shaking in his boots. The problem you're going to
have is that truth is a defense to libel.
Since you are an idiot, he can't lose.
--
David M. Nieporent How about that! I looked something up!
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu These books behind me don't just make the
1L - St. John's School of Law office look good, they're filled with
useful legal tidbits just like that! - L Hutz
Luke
Joseph G. Adams wrote:
>
> bra...@mindspring.com (Brad Barnhill) wrote:
>
> > I am following up to the gentleman's request for the nature of the
> > yellow-fringed flag.
> >
> > 3. THE FLAG HAS JURISDICATION IMPLICATIONS
> >
> > "Ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on the regimental colors
> > and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for
> > the use on other flags." The adjutant General of the Army, March 18,
> > 1924, Op Atty. Gen. 483, 485 (1925)
> >
> > According to the "LAW OF THE FLAG", a military flag does result in
> > jurisdictional implication when flown. This Falsely Accused cites the
> > following:
>
> Hmm. Courts cite the following:
>
> Even were Mr. McCann to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole
> eagle converted the state court's United States flag to a maritime
> flag of war, the Court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime
> war flag could limit the state court's jurisdiction to take his child
> away from him. Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and
> constitution, not a child's game wherein one's power is magnified or
> diminished by the display of some magic talisman.
I'm afraid J.G. is right. There is a blend of jurisdiction, wherein both
state and federal courts have blended jurisdictions--both as to location
(military bases) and power--where law, equity, and admiralty/maritime
are blended into a singular jurisdiction. There may be jurisdictional
implications in the statutes, regulations, and so forth. However, sadly,
the rules of construction are such as they are, and they are within the
bounds of the law. What your protest amounts to is a temper tantrum.
J.G. stops short of saying what it means. It not only doesn't limit the
court to admiralty/maritime, it allows the law to be blended into all
sorts of twists and turns that neither law, equity, or admiralty could
do on their own accord. Administrative law accomplishes the most twisted
of these feats very nicely. If you think that the court has no
jurisidiction, work in reverse. Find all of the elements necessary for
jurisdiction; then, see if they are missing any of those elements.
You'll find that the law can be your ally if you are willing.
Brad Barnhill
bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com (Brad Barnhill) wrote:
I am following up to the gentleman's request for the nature of the
yellow-fringed flag.
Permission is granted to cross-post to
alt.abducted.by.nonresident.aliens
>"Center for Constitutional Law" <tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>Joseph G. Adams wrote in message ...
>>> (snip)
>>>I'm a big fan of the "fringe on the flag = admiralty court"
>>argument.
>>>
>>I just finished reading the definition of what the American flag
>>is in Title 4 USC. There is no fringe.
>>I seek knowledge to fill a gap of my own ignorance. Since you
>>have mentioned it here, please, if you have such knowledge and
>>will, educate me on the significance of the fringe around the
>>flag.
>>When did it first appear, in our court rooms ?
>>Why is it universal inside all of our public forums and chambers
>>?
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY IN THE
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH
RE: JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MILITARY FLAG AND CHALLENGE OF
JURISDICTION
)
The People of the State of Virginia, )
Plaintiff )
) JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
v. ) MILITARY FLAG
) AND
Brad L. Barnhill, ) CHALLENGE OF
Falsely Accused, ) JURISDICTION
At all times by Special Visitation )
and not by General Appearance, )
conferring no jurisdiction )
whatsoever having challenged )
jurisdiction of this court. )
____________________________________)
COMES NOW, Brad L. Barnhill, the Falsely Accused. In my own proper
self, by special visitation and not by general appearance, and by
these presents [demanding all of my rights at all times, and waiving
none of my rights at any time, including my right to counsel of choice
that conforms to law and my religious beliefs and at all times
demanding the same], continue to challenge the jurisdiction of this
court stating that this court has exceeded its jurisdiction and abused
its discretion by ignoring due process of law and by inherent
constitutionally protected rights secured by the Creator as the facts
in evidence so demonstrate; and by the same I give:
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MILITARY FLAG
Falsely Accused challenges the jurisdiction of the MILITARY FLAG as
flown (displayed) in this Court. This challenge of jurisdiction shall
be so construed as to encompass a direct challenge to the court's
military, quasi-military, paramilitary, Admiralty/Maritime, and/or
Admiralty/forum jurisdiction.
EVIDENCE
This challenge of jurisdiction is based upon, but not limited to, the
following:
THE MILITARY FLAG
1. VIRGINIA LAW
The Virginia legislature passed into law the requirement that all
Virginia Courts my fly a "United States of America Flag".
"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes,
alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be
forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." 61 Stat. 642, July 30,
1947, also 4 USC Ā§ 1. (1992)
2. YELLOW FRINGE = MILITARY FLAG
According to 4 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Ā§Ā§ 1, 2 and 3: Executive Order No.
10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that
resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a
yellow fringe, boarder on three sides. The President of the United
States designated this deviation from the regular flag, by executive
order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Also noted at 4 USCS Ā§ 1 notes, and, 34 Op Atty. Gen. 483 (1925) that:
"Placing of fringe on national flag...not controlled by statue, but
are within direction of President as Commander-in-Chief of Army and
Navy."
3. THE FLAG HAS JURISDICATION IMPLICATIONS
"Ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on the regimental colors
and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for
the use on other flags." The adjutant General of the Army, March 18,
1924, Op Atty. Gen. 483, 485 (1925)
According to the "LAW OF THE FLAG", a military flag does result in
jurisdictional implication when flown. This Falsely Accused cites the
following:
"Under what is called international law "the law of the flag", a ship
owner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his
flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he
intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts, and that they
must either submit to its operation or not contract which him or his
agent at all." Puhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49,
LRA 181, 76 am, St. Rep. 30, citing vol. I Bouvier's Law Dictionary,
Rawles Rev., 779, 800.
The above quoted authority is an example of application of
Admiralty/Maritime law, and from the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:
"FLAG, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a
staff. FROM A MILITARY STANDPOINT flags are of two general classes,
those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried
by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general
name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted
troop.
COLORS AND STANDARDS are more nearly square than flags and are made of
silk with a knotted FRINGE OF YELLOW ON THREE SIDES.
"USE OF THE FLAG. THE MOST GENERAL AND APPROPRIATE USE OF THE FLAG IS
AS A SYMBOL OF AUTHORITY AND POWER."
Is there a reason to suspect this court adheres to admiralty/maritime
law? Or, that the law practiced in this court is that of an admiralty
forum? As set forth in an earlier pleading, all insurance is maritime
pursuant to Delovio v. Boiy. 2 Gall. 398, Federal Case No. 3776.
Private bank credits in the form of Federal Reserve Notes, upon which
the plaintiff/perpetrator and this court exercises jurisdiction, is in
fact insurance script within the exclusive jurisdiction of
Admiralty/Maritime. Further, the cases before the Court herein are of
"CONTRACTUAL" nature which has unquestionable jurisdictional
implication/s under the "LAW OF THE FLAG".
4. ARMY REGULATIONS
Army Regulation 840-10, 1 October 1979:
"2-3. Sizes and occasions for display.
b. National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use
in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag
will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with gold fringe,
2/12 inches wide. It will be he same size as the flags displayed or
carried with it.
c. Authorization for indoor display.
(4) each military courtroom."
Army Regulation 840-10, 1 October 1979:
"1-6. Restrictions. The following limitations and prohibitions are
applicable to flags, guidons, streamers, and components.
e. Unauthorized use of official flags, guidons, streamers, or
replicas thereof, including those presently or formerly carried by US
Army Units, by other than the office, individual, or organization for
which authorized, is prohibited except as indicated below.
(3) Recognized United States Army division associations..."
FURTHER JUDICIAL NOTICE:
The Falsely Accused cites further from:
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed to exist - but must
be proved to exist." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502.
This court is directed to take Judicial Notice hereof and of the
declaration of Non-Military Status of the Falsely Accused as filed
herewith.
DEMAND
Wherefore, the Falsely Accused submits this Challenge of Jurisdiction
of this court due to the Military nature of this court under the
Military Flag and demands the following relief:
1. Clarification of nature of this court considering the
jurisdictional implications of the Military Flag as displayed in this
Courtroom there are only three options:
A. 'Is this court a Military Court?', or,
B. 'Is this court a Martial Law Court?', or,
C. 'Is this court an Admiralty Court?'.
2. If this court is a Military Court the Accused must be a member
of the military in order for this court to establish jurisdiction, and
this Falsely Accused is not a member of the military so this court has
no right to jurisdiction and any orders from this court are void
having no effect on this Falsely Accused; Therefore this Falsely
Accused demands that this court exonerate this Falsely Accused of all
charges and sentences.
3. If this court is a Martial Law Court this Falsely Accused must
be apprised that inherent constitutionally protected rights secured by
the Creator have been suspended under some lawful order and this
Falsely Accused must have been apprised of the nature of the court for
this court to establish jurisdiction, and this Falsely Accused has not
been so apprised so this court has no right to jurisdiction and any
orders from this court are void having no effect on this Falsely
Accused; Therefore this Falsely Accused demands that this court
exonerate this Falsely Accused of all charges and sentences.
4. If this court is an Admiralty Court the Accused must be under
some kind of international contract to be obligated to the
jurisdiction of this court, and this Falsely Accused is not aware of
any such contract, and without proof that such a contract exists, this
court has no right to in personam jurisdiction and any orders from
this court are void ab initio having no effect on this Falsely
Accused; Therefore this Falsely Accused demands that this court
exonerate this Falsely Accused of all charges and sentences.
Dated:
Respectfully Submitted,
Brad L. Barnhill, Falsely Accused
Brad Barnhill
Luke <jungsk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Joseph G. Adams wrote:
>>
>> bra...@mindspring.com (Brad Barnhill) wrote:
>>
>> > I am following up to the gentleman's request for the nature of the
>> > yellow-fringed flag.
>> >
>> > 3. THE FLAG HAS JURISDICATION IMPLICATIONS
>> >
>> > "Ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on the regimental colors
>> > and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for
>> > the use on other flags." The adjutant General of the Army, March 18,
>> > 1924, Op Atty. Gen. 483, 485 (1925)
>> >
>> > According to the "LAW OF THE FLAG", a military flag does result in
>> > jurisdictional implication when flown. This Falsely Accused cites the
>> > following:
>>
>> Hmm. Courts cite the following:
>>
>> Even were Mr. McCann to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole
>> eagle converted the state court's United States flag to a maritime
>> flag of war, the Court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime
>> war flag could limit the state court's jurisdiction to take his child
>> away from him. Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and
>> constitution, not a child's game wherein one's power is magnified or
>> diminished by the display of some magic talisman.
>>
>> McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647 (W.D.Mo. 1997).
>I'm afraid J.G. is right. There is a blend of jurisdiction, wherein both
>state and federal courts have blended jurisdictions--both as to location
>(military bases) and power--where law, equity, and admiralty/maritime
>are blended into a singular jurisdiction. There may be jurisdictional
>implications in the statutes, regulations, and so forth. However, sadly,
>the rules of construction are such as they are, and they are within the
>bounds of the law. What your protest amounts to is a temper tantrum.
>J.G. stops short of saying what it means. It not only doesn't limit the
>court to admiralty/maritime, it allows the law to be blended into all
>sorts of twists and turns that neither law, equity, or admiralty could
>do on their own accord. Administrative law accomplishes the most twisted
>of these feats very nicely. If you think that the court has no
>jurisidiction, work in reverse. Find all of the elements necessary for
>jurisdiction; then, see if they are missing any of those elements.
>You'll find that the law can be your ally if you are willing.
What the flag defense does to attempt to limit the cause to be relied
upon by the prosecution. If I make this challenge, and it is
dismissed, then later on the prosecution cannot make any motions or
enter any evidence or use procedures inherrent in admiralty, martial
law or military cases. Or at least I can object to his use of these
procedures and be upheld on appeal.
When this is done, the court's bastardization of jurisdictions becomes
much more limited. I would rather fight the devil I know than to find
that the devil I don't know has snuck up on me.
Also, since these first three jurisdictions are "eliminated" then I
can use other challenges to exclude equity and finally corporate
jurisdictions.
This leaves only a common-law jurisdiction to be invoked by the
prosecution, which is subject to constitutional law constraints and
limitations.
Also, a common-law jurisdiction requires a corpus dilecti = a verified
complaint by someone who has been harmed or damaged. This is not to
be found in a traffic citation case, where there is no accident, for
example.
But this all has to be done on Special Appearance, before arraignment
can take place, before the entry of a plea or to ask for leave of
court for counsel or a jury. These types of jurisdictional challenges
must be made upon the record before arraignment, or they are waived.
None of the lawyers I know have been taught these procedures. I
believe that this is due to the fact that they have no standing to
raise these issues once they have been acquiesed to by the Accused, by
asking leave of court to be represented by counsel.
Lyle Tulin
Does this person really think that if he holds onto the fringe on a flag
he is tax exempt? is he crazy or what?
Brad Barnhill wrote:
>
> 2. YELLOW FRINGE = MILITARY FLAG
>
> According to 4 U.S.C. Chapter 1, ąøąø 1, 2 and 3: Executive Order No.
> 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that
> resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a
> yellow fringe, boarder on three sides. The President of the United
> States designated this deviation from the regular flag, by executive
> order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
> Also noted at 4 USCS ąø 1 notes, and, 34 Op Atty. Gen. 483 (1925) that:
Center for Constitutional Law
Joseph G. Adams wrote in message ..
>
" Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and
constitution, not a child's game wherein one's power is
magnified or
diminished by the display of some magic talisman.
McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647 (W.D.Mo. 1997).
> The above quoted authority is an example of application of
> Admiralty/Maritime law, and from the National Encyclopedia,
Volume 4:
Stop looking at encyclopedias and start looking at court
decisions:."
>
Because it is a court decision, does not make it correct, or
lawful, especially when the Judge engages in subtrifuge as the
McCann Judge did. The significance of the yellow fringe was
not claimed to be either magic nor tailisman, but substantial
and jurisdictional. The Judge sidestepped any direct issue of
substance. Mr. Barnhill has not made the mistake of McaCann and
Greenfield by going into court ill prepared. The court must
issue upon the merits of the argument in the case of Mr.
Barnhill.
As for jurisdiction, it matters not lawfully nor morally what
games the courts and congress, or the president may choose to
play with their venues and supposed jurisdictions, Mr. Barnhill
has declared is sovereign allegence to God, where it rightly is
with all men, save those who voluntarily waive such rights by
equitable signature on unconsciounable contracts of adhesion,
with fraudlent non disclosure of terms and conditions.
The voluntary nature of the signature is the vehicle by which
the state derives and exerts it's jurisdiction over men of
status', such as that declared by Mr. Barnhill.
That is the sum total of the motivation behind the merging of
the jurisdictions of "law" and "equity", so that the signature
will evidence the equitability of the waiver of rights, and the
ultimate exit from Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, secured right
to "cases, in law and equity", and the enterance into the
quasi-military, admiraty./maritime, compelled, jurisdiction of
statutory voluntary servitute, which was authorized by the
ratification of the 13th Amendment.
No man has any inherent right to tax another without his
permission. The signature on the W4 and 1040 give this
permission, under the presumption that the signer is fully aware
of all the terms and conditions thereof. Generally, he is not.
Dan Evans
In <6696js$2...@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Center for Constitutional Law" <tim...@primenet.com> writes:
>
>
>Joseph G. Adams wrote in message ..
>>
>" Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and
>constitution, not a child's game wherein one's power is
>magnified or
>diminished by the display of some magic talisman.
>McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647 (W.D.Mo. 1997).
>> Admiralty/Maritime law, and from the National Encyclopedia,
>Volume 4:
>decisions:."
>>
>Because it is a court decision, does not make it correct, or
>lawful, especially when the Judge engages in subtrifuge as the
>McCann Judge did. The significance of the yellow fringe was
>not claimed to be either magic nor tailisman, but substantial
>and jurisdictional. The Judge sidestepped any direct issue of
>substance.
No, there was no issue of substance. The judge did not "sidestep"
the issue, he confronted head on, and said it was ridiculous.
(I love tax protestor "logic." If the judge says "you're wrong,"
the tax protestor says, "well, he's not really sure." If the judge
says, "I'm absolutely sure, it's ridiculous," the tax protestor says,
"well, he's avoiding the issue and not addressing it seriously."
The fact is, there is nothing anyone can say that will ever convince
these fanatics, because they are absolutely crazy.)
Andrew Lazarus
>4. ARMY REGULATIONS
>
>Army Regulation 840-10, 1 October 1979:
>
>"2-3. Sizes and occasions for display.
>b. National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use
>in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag
>will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with gold fringe,
>2/12 inches wide. It will be he same size as the flags displayed or
>carried with it.
>c. Authorization for indoor display.
>(4) each military courtroom."
One of the things I find so bizarre about Barnhill argumentation is
that EVEN IF THE ABOVE IS CORRECT, IT'S IRRELEVANT. Just because the
Army flies a gold fringe inside DOESN'T MEAN that anybody who flies a
gold fringe is the Army. So the evidential value of the paragraph
above is ZERO.
The good news is you are appearing in a regular courtroom and YOU WILL
HAVE ALL OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. The bad news is your theory
that you can't commit a traffic offense unless you have hit something
is all wet. Anyhow, if we see a hiatus in your postings, we'll see you
when you get paroled!
Andrew Lazarus
On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 11:55:52 -0800, Lyle Tulin <nos...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Does this person really think that if he holds onto the fringe on a flag
>he is tax exempt?
Also exempt from the speed limit, rule about driving on the right,
stop signs, etc.
> is he crazy or what?
Yes.
Brad Barnhill
jgad...@concentric.net (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>bra...@mindspring.com (Brad Barnhill) wrote:
>> I am following up to the gentleman's request for the nature of the
>> yellow-fringed flag.
>>
>> 3. THE FLAG HAS JURISDICATION IMPLICATIONS
>>
>> "Ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on the regimental colors
>> and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for
>> the use on other flags." The adjutant General of the Army, March 18,
>> 1924, Op Atty. Gen. 483, 485 (1925)
>>
>> According to the "LAW OF THE FLAG", a military flag does result in
>> jurisdictional implication when flown. This Falsely Accused cites the
>> following:
>Hmm. Courts cite the following:
> Even were Mr. McCann to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole
>eagle converted the state court's United States flag to a maritime
>flag of war, the Court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime
>war flag could limit the state court's jurisdiction to take his child
>away from him. Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and
>constitution, not a child's game wherein one's power is magnified or
>diminished by the display of some magic talisman.
>McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647 (W.D.Mo. 1997).
>> The above quoted authority is an example of application of
>> Admiralty/Maritime law, and from the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:
>Stop looking at encyclopedias and start looking at court decisions:
The point of the flag challenge is to put the challenge on the record.
Once the judge tells you what type of jurisdiction is being invoked,
and it is not one of the above (Admiralty, Military, Martial), then
you can take the next step and demand to know whether it is an equity
proceding, or an action at (common) law, or a corporate jurisdiction
being invoked.
The jurisdiction invoked must appear on the face of the record if
challenged, and must be proven to before in personam jurisdiction can
be established. If the court does not do this, then it is an
appealable error.
Dan Evans
In <34889ec3....@news.dnai.com>, Dr...@aol.com (Andrew Lazarus) writes:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 1997 02:01:36 GMT, bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com (Brad
>Barnhill) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Army Regulation 840-10, 1 October 1979:
>>
>>"2-3. Sizes and occasions for display.
>>b. National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use
>>in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag
>>will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with gold fringe,
>>2/12 inches wide. It will be he same size as the flags displayed or
>>carried with it.
>>c. Authorization for indoor display.
>>(4) each military courtroom."
>
>that EVEN IF THE ABOVE IS CORRECT, IT'S IRRELEVANT.
You mean "if A, then B" doesn't automatically lead to "if B, then A"?
Damn!
Jol Silversmith
In article <6652ro$i...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com wrote:
> I am following up to the gentleman's request for the nature of the
> yellow-fringed flag.
And here's a preview of the cases the court will cite when it rejects
Barnhill's petititon as frivolous, and likely sanctions him:
The remaining claims that Petitioner has asserted by way of motion to
dismiss, e.g. Court lacking jurisdiction because the Court's flag has
yellow fringes on it, were denied and the Court considers them to have
not only been without merit but also to have been totally frivolous.
Petitioner's claims have no arguable basis in law or fact and the appeal
is not taken in good faith.
Vella v. McCammon, 671 F.Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D. Tex. 1987)
Defendant Greenstreet's response to Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment identifies this Court as an "Admiralty Court" without further
discussing his allegation. If his reference is to be construed as a
jurisdictional challenge, his motion is denied. Others have attempted
to persuade the judiciary that fringe on an American flag denotes a
court of admiralty. In light of the fact that this Court has such a
flag in its courtroom, the issue is addressed. The concept behind the
theory the proponent asserts is that if a courtroom is adorned with a
flag which happens to be fringed around the edges, such decor indicates
that the court is one of admiralty jurisdiction exclusively. To think
that a fringed flag adorning the courtroom somehow limits this Court's
jurisdiction is frivolous. . . . Unfortunately for Defendant
Greenstreet, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction. . . .
This Court further orders that all costs incurred in this lawsuit be
assessed against Defendant Greenstreet. . . .
Mr. Greenstreet's improper tactics failed to overcome Plaintiff's
properly supported motion for summary judgment. As a result, judgment
is appropriately entered against the defendants. Furthermore, it is the
expectation of this Court that the equitable relief and assessments
granted will reflect the Court's frustration with the arguments and
tactics employed by Defendant Greenstreet. Mr. Greenstreet is hereby
cautioned that if he continues to take legal positions which are not
supported by existing law, severe monetary sanctions may result, his pro
se status notwithstanding. Hopefully, litigants like Mr. Greenstreet
will be unwilling to pay to harass the government in the future.
United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224, 229 (N.D. Tex 1996)
Lastly, Appellant argues that the gold fringe adorning the American flag
displayed in the district justice's courtroom conferred
Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction. In addition to the fact that this is a
preposterous claim, Appellant was afforded a trial de novo and,
therefore, matters pertaining to the proceedings before the district
magistrate are irrelevant.
By filing the present appeal seeking review of frivolous issues,
Appellant has caused this court to waste precious judicial resources.
Appellant's total disregard for the court system as a whole began in the
trial court and has carried over to this court. We admonish Appellant
for necessitating review of these claims and direct her attention to the
many sincere appellants who seek review before this court. Accordingly,
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. Rule 2744, 42 Pa.C.S.A. . . . we award the
Commonwealth reasonable attorneys fees and costs and remand this matter
to the trial court for a determination of attorneys fees and costs.
Pennsylvania v. Appel, 652 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994)
Some of the arguments raised in the trial court and ostensibly on appeal
are incomprehensible and summarily rejected. Among these is that a gold-
fringed flag displayed in the courtroom suggests that the court was
limited to admiralty jurisdiction. . . .
Wisconsin v. Svee, 421 N.W.2d 117 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988)
--
Jol A. Silversmith __________________________ silv...@law.harvard.edu
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/index.html _______ jasi...@ix.netcom.com
Opinions are my own, and should not be construed as legal advice, etc.
Lord Mansfield
My first JPG posting attempt (flags nations.jpg) UNITED STATES Merchant Flag?
--
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
- Tacitus (55-117 A.D.)
Lord Mansfield
BEGIN -- Cut Here -- cut here
begin 644 flags nations.JPG
<encoded_portion_removed>
END -- Cut Here -- cut here
Lord Mansfield
BEGIN -- Cut Here -- cut here
Lord Mansfield
Lord Mansfield
My first attempt in posting JPG (flags nations.jpg) UNITED STATES Merchant Flag?
In article <34885C...@nospam.com>, nos...@nospam.com wrote:
--
Lord Mansfield
Lord Mansfield
---
(This file must be converted with BinHex 4.0)
<encoded_portion_removed>
--- end of part 1 ---
Lord Mansfield
---
<encoded_portion_removed>
)A(d!:
Luke
Brad Barnhill wrote:
> The point of the flag challenge is to put the challenge on the record.
> Once the judge tells you what type of jurisdiction is being invoked,
> and it is not one of the above (Admiralty, Military, Martial), then
> you can take the next step and demand to know whether it is an equity
> proceding, or an action at (common) law, or a corporate jurisdiction
> being invoked.
>
The problem here is that the jurisdiction is blended. As a result, they
are simply going to say "Statutory Jurisdiction." You are better off
finding a particular requirement for jurisdiction that has not been met
(e.g., unverified complaint, inferences, etc.). That is precisely why
its so difficult to fight an agency like the IRS. UCC counterdemands
might apply to a Notice and Demand from the IRS; however, it certainly
doesn't mean that the entire tax code is UCC and that counterdemands are
the way to challenge the IRS. Proceedings to seize property may be
initiated in a quasi-admiralty jurisdiction, but that doesn't make the
entire jurisdiction an Admiralty jurisdiction.
These types of presumptions are what lead so many people to the
slaughter. The blending of jurisdictions and the rules of construction
make it so that you essentially have to be an attorney to understand how
it works (and even the bulk of attorneys don't understand it).
The admiralty flag is just giving you notice that the court MAY be
proceeding in admiralty or with admiralty powers in a blended
jurisdiction. It does not mean that the court is limited to admiralty,
nor does it mean that the court is proceeding in admiralty.
Admiralty is really only important for seizing your property. That is
the prerequisite to the civil proceedings with the IRS. No one petitions
against the IRS unless their money was taken, or is about to be taken.
The theorem "possession is 9/10ths of the law" applies here. That is the
point Gwailo was trying to make about reversing the burden of proof.
> The jurisdiction invoked must appear on the face of the record if
> challenged, and must be proven to before in personam jurisdiction can
> be established. If the court does not do this, then it is an
> appealable error.
In personam jurisdiction can be established by your presence in the
court room. Subject matter jurisdiction is also challengable, and so is
venue. If there is no jurisdiction of the subject matter, why would you
care if they have in personam jurisdiction or not? They need to have
both in order to proceed against you.
Luke
Center for Constitutional Law wrote:
> Because it is a court decision, does not make it correct, or
> lawful, especially when the Judge engages in subtrifuge as the
> McCann Judge did. The significance of the yellow fringe was
> not claimed to be either magic nor tailisman, but substantial
> and jurisdictional. The Judge sidestepped any direct issue of
> substance. Mr. Barnhill has not made the mistake of McaCann and
> Greenfield by going into court ill prepared. The court must
> issue upon the merits of the argument in the case of Mr.
> Barnhill.
Look, there aren't too many people arguing that successfully. On the
contrary, there is reams of case law on defects in complaints. Try a
richer area of the law, it makes it much more difficult for the court to
ridicule you.
> As for jurisdiction, it matters not lawfully nor morally what
> games the courts and congress, or the president may choose to
> play with their venues and supposed jurisdictions, Mr. Barnhill
> has declared is sovereign allegence to God, where it rightly is
> with all men, save those who voluntarily waive such rights by
> equitable signature on unconsciounable contracts of adhesion,
> with fraudlent non disclosure of terms and conditions.
The problem with that assertion is that it has been demanded by a
democratic republic. It is a matter of politics, not law; hence, the
court will never entertain this type of theorem. They don't even
entertain the guarantee of a republican form of government for the most
part--calling it political. Only if a person is deprived of substantial
rights will the court hear.
> The voluntary nature of the signature is the vehicle by which
> the state derives and exerts it's jurisdiction over men of
> status', such as that declared by Mr. Barnhill.
Well that's just it, isn't it. However, it isn't always that simple. If
you get a license, and do not engage in the restricted activity, you are
not necessarily liable to all of the terms and conditions. A person
could use a car for his personal use and for business use--the business
tax only applies to the business use, and so do the deductions.
> That is the sum total of the motivation behind the merging of
> the jurisdictions of "law" and "equity", so that the signature
> will evidence the equitability of the waiver of rights, and the
> ultimate exit from Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, secured right
> to "cases, in law and equity", and the enterance into the
> quasi-military, admiraty./maritime, compelled, jurisdiction of
> statutory voluntary servitute, which was authorized by the
> ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Horseshit. Law, equity, and admiralty are blended to blindside
you--along with the political cover of making pleadings a hell of a lot
easier. However, that does not mean that you are stuck in admiralty or
equity. It does mean, however, that they can use private law to enforce
public policy. Yes, your legal strategies here are a little different;
however, they are not quite so bizarre as they are often made out to be.
Sometimes it is as simple as not having a signature, not giving a person
a hearing, or not pleading something which is required ('taxable
income', 'required to have a license' etc.). Making an agency follow
procedures to the letter can be their worst conceivable nightmare.
For example, you are entitled to a hearing before the IRS calls you a
taxpayer and starts seizing your property. Of course, you do need to ask
for the hearing. Now, imagine every American asks for a hearing. That
would bring the system to its knees.
Luke
Brad Barnhill wrote:
>
> What the flag defense does to attempt to limit the cause to be relied
> upon by the prosecution. If I make this challenge, and it is
> dismissed, then later on the prosecution cannot make any motions or
> enter any evidence or use procedures inherrent in admiralty, martial
> law or military cases. Or at least I can object to his use of these
> procedures and be upheld on appeal.
You could object without making the flag argument. If the complaint
doesn't provide you with sufficient notice, it is defective.
> When this is done, the court's bastardization of jurisdictions becomes
> much more limited. I would rather fight the devil I know than to find
> that the devil I don't know has snuck up on me.
I can understand that. I just find it simpler the other way.
> Also, a common-law jurisdiction requires a corpus dilecti = a verified
> complaint by someone who has been harmed or damaged. This is not to
> be found in a traffic citation case, where there is no accident, for
> example.
Yeah. I have seen verified complaints issued by local agencies though.
In such cases, it is necessary to attack the pleadings. For example,
they may have a state statute, but no local ordinance for its
provisions. When it is a private right, for example, they generally have
to have a local ordinance. Also, they often don't obey the rules of
construction.
> But this all has to be done on Special Appearance, before arraignment
> can take place, before the entry of a plea or to ask for leave of
> court for counsel or a jury. These types of jurisdictional challenges
> must be made upon the record before arraignment, or they are waived.
Demurrers and motions to dismiss; yes. However, you can challenge the
jurisdicition at any time. In California, for example, it need not be
stated in the pleadings, but it must be established at trial. Of course,
you want to object to the lack of a verified complaint. After all, there
is no point in setting a trial date without one. Then you can take the
objection by motion to set aside.
> None of the lawyers I know have been taught these procedures. I
> believe that this is due to the fact that they have no standing to
> raise these issues once they have been acquiesed to by the Accused, by
> asking leave of court to be represented by counsel.
I find that hard to believe. I think a lot of them are stupid or lazy.
For example, most of them ought to know about the verified complaint
objection. It is rudimentary law. However, they seem to think that it
will be easily fixed and merely cause delays. Frequently the pleadings
are not amended and it is to the Defendant's prejudice, which makes the
complaint unsustainable.
I see your point. I just think its a round about way of doing things,
and with the bad publicity given to these types of arguments, a standard
set of tactics are usually all that is necessary anyway. Why put fuel on
the fire. A lot of people are misunderstand these arguments, and it is
to their detriment.
Gwailo
Luke wrote: (clip)
> The admiralty flag is just giving you notice that the court MAY be
> proceeding in admiralty or with admiralty powers in a blended
> jurisdiction. It does not mean that the court is limited to admiralty,
> nor does it mean that the court is proceeding in admiralty.
>
> Admiralty is really only important for seizing your property. That is
> the prerequisite to the civil proceedings with the IRS. No one petitions
> against the IRS unless their money was taken, or is about to be taken.
> The theorem "possession is 9/10ths of the law" applies here. That is the
> point Gwailo was trying to make about reversing the burden of proof.
No. Completely upside down. You can petition the tax court before anything
is taken or about to be taken. The assessment of a tax deficiency (which
makes it a "debt due and payable") isn't final until the time to petition
tax court has run out.
After the time to petition tax court ends, the only way to contest the tax
is to pay all of it, file a refund claim, and sue in District Court (or
Claims Court) for a refund if the claim is denied. The Anti-Injunction Act
generally prevents courts from restraining collections. Possession is *not*
"nine points of the law" here -- taxpayer has the same burden of proof
whether the funds are being held by the taxpayer or the Treasury pending
final decision.
I'm amazed at the misunderstandings about procedure that get posted on this
board.
'Gwailo (Then again, I'm amazed at a lot of the other stuff that gets posted
here, too.)
> Brad> The jurisdiction invoked must appear on the face of the record if
> > challenged, and must be proven to before in personam jurisdiction can
> > be established. If the court does not do this, then it is an appealable
> error.
>
> Luke In personam jurisdiction can be established by your presence in the
Brad Barnhill
Luke <jungsk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Brad Barnhill wrote:
>> The point of the flag challenge is to put the challenge on the record.
>> Once the judge tells you what type of jurisdiction is being invoked,
>> and it is not one of the above (Admiralty, Military, Martial), then
>> you can take the next step and demand to know whether it is an equity
>> proceding, or an action at (common) law, or a corporate jurisdiction
>> being invoked.
>>
>The problem here is that the jurisdiction is blended. As a result, they
>are simply going to say "Statutory Jurisdiction." You are better off
>finding a particular requirement for jurisdiction that has not been met
>(e.g., unverified complaint, inferences, etc.). That is precisely why
>its so difficult to fight an agency like the IRS. UCC counterdemands
>might apply to a Notice and Demand from the IRS; however, it certainly
>doesn't mean that the entire tax code is UCC and that counterdemands are
>the way to challenge the IRS. Proceedings to seize property may be
>initiated in a quasi-admiralty jurisdiction, but that doesn't make the
>entire jurisdiction an Admiralty jurisdiction.
Of course, it is all Statutory Jurisdiction. But they have to have
the subject matter jurisdiction conveyed by the Constitution of the
state (in a traffic case) in order to attempt to attach it to me (in
personam). I have a right to know the cause and nature of the
accusation. If I am being charged with a traffic offense, I want to
know the nature of the jurisdiction invoked (common, corporate,
admiralty, martial, equity, etc) before I can even address the issues
of the cause (the complaint, registration, contract, emergency,
agreement, etc) and am being deprived of this due to the skeletal
accusatory instruments being supplied (a traffic ticket, in this
instance).
Since I have this right guaranteed by the Constitution or Virginia at
Article I, Section 8, I am being deprived of due process if they do
not disclose the nature of the accusation in the particulars I have
specified.
Also, in order for the subject matter jurisdiction to be applied in
the first place, the summons or process issued must be consistent with
the jurisdiction being invoked. If not, the process is deficient.
Could you please lead me to a source which would help in this step
above?
>These types of presumptions are what lead so many people to the
>slaughter. The blending of jurisdictions and the rules of construction
>make it so that you essentially have to be an attorney to understand how
>it works (and even the bulk of attorneys don't understand it).
I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
of 1812.
>The admiralty flag is just giving you notice that the court MAY be
>proceeding in admiralty or with admiralty powers in a blended
>jurisdiction. It does not mean that the court is limited to admiralty,
>nor does it mean that the court is proceeding in admiralty.
So I directly address this issue head on before the court can proceed
to trial, to get the prosecution to admit that such jurisdiction is
not being invoked. This limits the issues of their cause as the
nature has been swept away.
>Admiralty is really only important for seizing your property. That is
>the prerequisite to the civil proceedings with the IRS. No one petitions
>against the IRS unless their money was taken, or is about to be taken.
>The theorem "possession is 9/10ths of the law" applies here. That is the
>point Gwailo was trying to make about reversing the burden of proof.
I agree, however, are they not seizing property (my liberty) from me
by revoking a license to drive?
>> The jurisdiction invoked must appear on the face of the record if
>> challenged, and must be proven to before in personam jurisdiction can
>> be established. If the court does not do this, then it is an
>> appealable error.
>In personam jurisdiction can be established by your presence in the
>court room. Subject matter jurisdiction is also challengable, and so is
>venue. If there is no jurisdiction of the subject matter, why would you
>care if they have in personam jurisdiction or not? They need to have
>both in order to proceed against you.
So you stand on special appearance and challenge this in personam
jurisdiction until they prove it. Jurisdiction which is challenged
must the established before they can proceed to trial.
I stipulate that the state has subject matter jurisdiction conferred
by the Constitution of Virginia (and from the commerce clause of the
federal constitution, given to the states for police power under the
declaratory 14th Amendment, and within enclaves by the Buck Act).
This is the statutory jurisidction for commerce we have spoken to
above.
But they cannot apply that to me in personam unless I am engaged in
corporate activity, or unless I am an artificial person due to
possession of an SSN, and thereby a federal citizen, resident in the
state.
Brad Barnhill
Gwailo <rdan...@sirius.com> wrote:
>Luke wrote: (clip)
>> The admiralty flag is just giving you notice that the court MAY be
>> proceeding in admiralty or with admiralty powers in a blended
>> jurisdiction. It does not mean that the court is limited to admiralty,
>> nor does it mean that the court is proceeding in admiralty.
>>
>> Admiralty is really only important for seizing your property. That is
>> the prerequisite to the civil proceedings with the IRS. No one petitions
>> against the IRS unless their money was taken, or is about to be taken.
>> The theorem "possession is 9/10ths of the law" applies here. That is the
>> point Gwailo was trying to make about reversing the burden of proof.
>No. Completely upside down. You can petition the tax court before anything
>is taken or about to be taken. The assessment of a tax deficiency (which
>makes it a "debt due and payable") isn't final until the time to petition
>tax court has run out.
>After the time to petition tax court ends, the only way to contest the tax
>is to pay all of it, file a refund claim, and sue in District Court (or
>Claims Court) for a refund if the claim is denied. The Anti-Injunction Act
>generally prevents courts from restraining collections. Possession is *not*
>"nine points of the law" here -- taxpayer has the same burden of proof
>whether the funds are being held by the taxpayer or the Treasury pending
>final decision.
>I'm amazed at the misunderstandings about procedure that get posted on this
>board.
The issue here is that the government, in effect, is "allowing" you to
become the moving party in the case. If the government were to the
the moving party, then the burden of proof would fall upon them.
Since you are the moving party, then the burden of proof falls upon
you, and you keep falling.
>> Brad> The jurisdiction invoked must appear on the face of the record if
>> > challenged, and must be proven to before in personam jurisdiction can
>> > be established. If the court does not do this, then it is an appealable
>> error.
>>
>> Luke In personam jurisdiction can be established by your presence in the
>> court room. Subject matter jurisdiction is also challengable, and so is
>> venue. If there is no jurisdiction of the subject matter, why would you
>> care if they have in personam jurisdiction or not? They need to have
>> both in order to proceed against you.
Jol Silversmith
In article <66eoop$5...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com wrote:
[...]
> I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
> subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
> the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
> privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
> money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
> this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
> of 1812.
And again, to learn why all this is just another extremist lie - and to
learn why extremists tell it - visit
<http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html>.
Private Citizen
Trevor Baycliff wrote:
>
> Joseph G. Adams wrote:
> > > from the Social Security Administration stated that "a person with no Social
> > > Security number has no taxable income." I recently found the source of this
> > > absurd piece of misinformation.
> > >
> > > At http://announce.com/~behold/ssa-ltr.htm you can find a graphic
> > > image of a letter dated 1986, from Penny Payton, Claims Representative of the
>
> contact the SSA and obtain your exemption certificate.
You don't need an exemption certificate.
The Social Security tax, (subtitle c Employment taxes) and the
Income Tax (Subtitle A Income tax) are 2 seperate and totaly different
taxes.
The fact that the IRS needs or demands An ID number on a "return" has
Nothing to do with a SSN.
All this is proof of the real reason for the Social Security skam: to
give the natonal government, control over the everyday cititens, by
implimenting a national ID Number.
When I applied for my SSN, I was told it was NOT to be used for ID. My
grand parents's SSN cards even have that written on the back side of
their cards.
Without an SSN or national ID, your life is NOT an open books, and thus
you have privacy.
--
26 CFR 601.702, 44 USC 1505, and 31 USC Chapter 3. Look 'em up.
15 spam messages a day, on avarage.. Enough is enough.
Unsolicited Commercial E-MAIL is not you practicing FREE SPEECH.
Unsolicited Commercial E-MAIL is an infringement into my solitude and
privacy.
Jol Silversmith
In article <348B09...@spam.net>, Private Citizen <cit...@spam.net> wrote:
[...]
> When I applied for my SSN, I was told it was NOT to be used for ID. My
> grand parents's SSN cards even have that written on the back side of
> their cards.
A statement which refers to the _card_, not the number.
An expert for the Social Security Administration testified that the
Administration frequently issues Social Security cards to elderly people
for the purpose of providing identification for cashing checks. She
further testified that the legend "Not for Identification Purposes" was
dropped from the card in 1972 because individuals nevertheless were using
the cards for identification purposes.
United States v. Quinteros, 769 F.2d 968, 970 (5th Cir. 1985).
Appellant testified that he told the State patrolman that the bottom of
his social security card said "not for identification." He testified that
the use to which the social security number was to be put was limited to
social security purposes only. . . . We conclude that appellant was not
privileged to withhold his social security number from the State patrolman.
Ohio v. Hill, No. 993, 1992 WL 29184, *2-3 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. Feb. 6, 1992).
Luke
Jol Silversmith wrote:
>
> In article <66eoop$5...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
> bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
> > the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
> > privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
> > money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
> > this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
> > of 1812.
>
> learn why extremists tell it - visit
> <http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html>.
Under your third paragraph you spin a lot of alternatives as to why the
amendment was proposed. I don't see why his theory is an "extremist lie"
and yours is a valid set of theories.
Luke
Brad Barnhill wrote:
> Of course, it is all Statutory Jurisdiction. But they have to have
> the subject matter jurisdiction conveyed by the Constitution of the
> state (in a traffic case) in order to attempt to attach it to me (in
> personam).
But what if they use an interstate commerce provision? What if they are
taxing the private use of public property for profit under the Buck Act.
Why would that come from the state constitution?
> I have a right to know the cause and nature of the
> accusation. If I am being charged with a traffic offense, I want to
> know the nature of the jurisdiction invoked (common, corporate,
> admiralty, martial, equity, etc) before I can even address the issues
> of the cause (the complaint, registration, contract, emergency,
> agreement, etc) and am being deprived of this due to the skeletal
> accusatory instruments being supplied (a traffic ticket, in this
> instance).
So why challenge the flag? Why not just address the complaint. All of
there Notice to Appear complaints omit any reference to the provision
that makes it an infraction. Certainly they can't commit you without
first telling you it is a crime. After all, that IS the nature.
> Since I have this right guaranteed by the Constitution or Virginia at
> Article I, Section 8, I am being deprived of due process if they do
> not disclose the nature of the accusation in the particulars I have
> specified.
Still, what does that have to do with the flag?
> Also, in order for the subject matter jurisdiction to be applied in
> the first place, the summons or process issued must be consistent with
> the jurisdiction being invoked. If not, the process is deficient.
> Could you please lead me to a source which would help in this step
> above?
I've never challenged on anything like that before. In fact, I've never
had them serve process on me outside of a "Courtesy Notice." I usually
attack subject matter. If I were as dedicated as you, I'd probably
attack every single point, but I don't really want to go to CHP admin
boards or anything. I just want to defeat the ticket.
> >These types of presumptions are what lead so many people to the
> >slaughter. The blending of jurisdictions and the rules of construction
> >make it so that you essentially have to be an attorney to understand how
> >it works (and even the bulk of attorneys don't understand it).
>
> I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
> subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
> the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
> privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
> money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
> this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
> of 1812.
Well, you could argue that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation,
and that Congress does not grant titles of esquire. So with or without
the amendment, we don't have these titles granted by Congress. Are you
speaking of the power of the Court to grant titles to represent others
at bar?
> So I directly address this issue head on before the court can proceed
> to trial, to get the prosecution to admit that such jurisdiction is
> not being invoked. This limits the issues of their cause as the
> nature has been swept away.
How has the nature been "swept away?" Do you presume that they are
proceeding at admiralty? They are proceeding in Rem against you as an
object?
> I agree, however, are they not seizing property (my liberty) from me
> by revoking a license to drive?
A long history of case law shows that a person does not have the right
to use public property for private profit. While you may have a right to
travel, that does not include the ability to use the roads in the day to
day course of commerce. A license is considered a property, which
entitles you to due process before it can be revoked or suspended.
> So you stand on special appearance and challenge this in personam
> jurisdiction until they prove it. Jurisdiction which is challenged
> must the established before they can proceed to trial.
>
> I stipulate that the state has subject matter jurisdiction conferred
> by the Constitution of Virginia (and from the commerce clause of the
> federal constitution, given to the states for police power under the
> declaratory 14th Amendment, and within enclaves by the Buck Act).
> This is the statutory jurisidction for commerce we have spoken to
> above.
Well if you concede that they have it, why are you challenging it? My
contention is that they haven't made any allegation that I was engaged
in commercial activity. When such an allegation is necessary to bring me
within the operation of the statute, it must be made; otherwise, the
complaint proceeds on conclusions of fact.
> But they cannot apply that to me in personam unless I am engaged in
> corporate activity, or unless I am an artificial person due to
> possession of an SSN, and thereby a federal citizen, resident in the
> state.
Well, your actual status doesn't matter that much. Commerce clause
applies to individuals too. Since subject matter jurisdiction is what is
in question here, why are you challenging in personam. Generally, there
in personam jurisdiction is general, but the subject matter is special.
You don't here traffic courts hearing bankruptcy cases for example...
I don't care if I was within their territorial jurisdiction or not, I
just don't want them to proceed unless they state all the elements of
the offense (subject matter).
Luke
Luke wrote:
>
...very badly.
Sorry for the "here" which should be "hear" and the "there" which should
be "their" here and there... :) (or is that hear and their?) :)
Luke
Gwailo wrote:
>
> Luke wrote: (clip)
> No. Completely upside down. You can petition the tax court before anything
> is taken or about to be taken. The assessment of a tax deficiency (which
> makes it a "debt due and payable") isn't final until the time to petition
> tax court has run out.
How is that upside down Gwailo? I'm agreeing with practically everything
you say. The reason the burden of proof is on you, is because YOU are
challenging the IRS and not the other way around. If you have a debt
"Due and payable" your money is ABOUT TO BE TAKEN GWAILO. ASK ANYONE WHO
EVER GOT ASSESSED. A Petition to the tax court is before it gets taken,
but after it gets assessed. Why else would you petition a tax court????
> After the time to petition tax court ends, the only way to contest the tax
> is to pay all of it, file a refund claim, and sue in District Court (or
> Claims Court) for a refund if the claim is denied. The Anti-Injunction Act
> generally prevents courts from restraining collections. Possession is *not*
> "nine points of the law" here -- taxpayer has the same burden of proof
> whether the funds are being held by the taxpayer or the Treasury pending
> final decision.
Well possession meaning they claim it and it is due and payable--in
otherwords, they say it is theirs. You cannot stop them with injunctions
as you have just pointed out again. So it doesn't matter if it is in
your hands, you are not entitled to possession if they claim your money.
Once they claim your money, it is pretty much in their possession. You
can argue otherwise if you want, but unless you've deposited the funds
in a bank in a country with no U.S. tax treaty, you can pretty much kiss
your money good bye. However, you can request a hearing regarding the
appellation of taxpayer. You can also file a 911 if you are entitled.
These are not injunctions, granted, but you are entitled to a hearing
before they call you a taxpayer for any given year.
> I'm amazed at the misunderstandings about procedure that get posted on this
> board.
What misunderstanding?
Gwailo
Luke wrote:
> > Luke wrote: (clip)
>
> Gwailo: No. Completely upside down. You can petition the tax court before
> anything
> > is taken or about to be taken. The assessment of a tax deficiency (which
> > makes it a "debt due and payable") isn't final until the time to petition
> > tax court has run out.
>
> How is that upside down Gwailo? I'm agreeing with practically everything you
> say.
As protester types go, you're pretty lucid. However, you're using defined
procedural terms inaccurately.
> The reason the burden of proof is on you, is because YOU are challenging the
> IRS and not the other way around. If you have a debt "Due and payable" your
> money is ABOUT TO BE TAKEN GWAILO. ASK ANYONE WHO EVER GOT ASSESSED. A Petition
> to the tax court is before it gets taken, but after it gets assessed. Why else
> would you petition a tax court????
Read Sec. 6213(a) and 6215. Tax can't be assessed until the time for petitioning
the tax court has expired, and if a petition is filed, tax can't be assessed
until the case is finally decided.
> Gwailo: After the time to petition tax court ends, the only way to contest the
> tax
> > is to pay all of it, file a refund claim, and sue in District Court (or
> Claims Court) for a refund if the claim is denied. The Anti-Injunction Act
> generally prevents courts from restraining collections. Possession is *not*
> "nine points of the law" here -- taxpayer has the same burden of proof whether
> the funds are being held by the taxpayer or the Treasury pending final
> decision.
>
> Well possession meaning they claim it and it is due and payable--in
> otherwords, they say it is theirs. You cannot stop them with injunctions
> as you have just pointed out again. So it doesn't matter if it is in
> your hands, you are not entitled to possession if they claim your money.
> Once they claim your money, it is pretty much in their possession. You
> can argue otherwise if you want, but unless you've deposited the funds
> in a bank in a country with no U.S. tax treaty, you can pretty much kiss
> your money good bye.
"Possession is 9/10ths of the law" is a common misstatement of the adage
"possession is nine points at the law", to the effect that the law presumes the
possessor of a thing is entitled to keep it unless proven otherwise. That's not
the way it works with taxes -- if you don't petition tax court and the debt
becomes final then the government gets the right to hold the $$ in dispute until
final determination/
> However, you can request a hearing regarding the appellation of taxpayer. You
> can also file a 911 if you are entitled. These are not injunctions, granted,
> but you are entitled to a hearing before they call you a taxpayer for any given
> year.
>
> Gwailo: I'm amazed at the misunderstandings about procedure that get posted on
> this board.
>
> What misunderstanding?
That's Just My Point. And what's this "taxpayer appellation hearing"? You mean
the Appeals office hearing between examinations and Tax Court?
'Gwailo
Jol Silversmith
> > > I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
> > > subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
> > > the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
> > > privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
> > > money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
> > > this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
> > > of 1812.
> >
> > And again, to learn why all this is just another extremist lie - and to
> > learn why extremists tell it - visit
> > <http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html>.
>
> Under your third paragraph you spin a lot of alternatives as to why the
> amendment was proposed. I don't see why his theory is an "extremist lie"
> and yours is a valid set of theories.
Because mine are supported by historical citations, while extremists have
nothing but their own delusions to support their claims about its origins.
Brad Barnhill
silv...@law.harvard.edu (Jol Silversmith) wrote:
>In article <66eoop$5...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
>bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com wrote:
>[...]
>> I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
>> subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
>> the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
>> privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
>> money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
>> this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
>> of 1812.
>And again, to learn why all this is just another extremist lie - and to
>learn why extremists tell it - visit
><http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html>.
By one who would continue this subjugation.
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
e:bra...@chv.mindspring.com
========================================================
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the
government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the
government of others? Or have we found angels in the form
of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
http://pages.prodigy.com/jefferson_quotes/
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
Luke <jungsk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Brad Barnhill wrote:
>> Of course, it is all Statutory Jurisdiction. But they have to have
>> the subject matter jurisdiction conveyed by the Constitution of the
>> state (in a traffic case) in order to attempt to attach it to me (in
>> personam).
>But what if they use an interstate commerce provision? What if they are
>taxing the private use of public property for profit under the Buck Act.
>Why would that come from the state constitution?
Fine. I am not engaged in commerce when I drive to see my mom.
>> I have a right to know the cause and nature of the
>> accusation. If I am being charged with a traffic offense, I want to
>> know the nature of the jurisdiction invoked (common, corporate,
>> admiralty, martial, equity, etc) before I can even address the issues
>> of the cause (the complaint, registration, contract, emergency,
>> agreement, etc) and am being deprived of this due to the skeletal
>> accusatory instruments being supplied (a traffic ticket, in this
>> instance).
>So why challenge the flag? Why not just address the complaint. All of
>there Notice to Appear complaints omit any reference to the provision
>that makes it an infraction. Certainly they can't commit you without
>first telling you it is a crime. After all, that IS the nature.
Because the complaint is so skeletal that I cannot see the subject
matter jurisdiction they are using to gain in personam.
>> Since I have this right guaranteed by the Constitution or Virginia at
>> Article I, Section 8, I am being deprived of due process if they do
>> not disclose the nature of the accusation in the particulars I have
>> specified.
>Still, what does that have to do with the flag?
The flag gives notice of admiralty, military or martial jurisdiction.
Is it any coincidence that falgs in courtrooms before 1938 were
displayed as banners against a wall sans fringe, instead of hanging as
though for a military unit on the march with the fringe?
>> Also, in order for the subject matter jurisdiction to be applied in
>> the first place, the summons or process issued must be consistent with
>> the jurisdiction being invoked. If not, the process is deficient.
>
>> Could you please lead me to a source which would help in this step
>> above?
>I've never challenged on anything like that before. In fact, I've never
>had them serve process on me outside of a "Courtesy Notice." I usually
>attack subject matter. If I were as dedicated as you, I'd probably
>attack every single point, but I don't really want to go to CHP admin
>boards or anything. I just want to defeat the ticket.
But they can only hve the subject matter jurisdiction in this
particular case if they are trying to attach thru martial law or
corporate law or admiralty law, none of which they will admit.
>> >These types of presumptions are what lead so many people to the
>> >slaughter. The blending of jurisdictions and the rules of construction
>> >make it so that you essentially have to be an attorney to understand how
>> >it works (and even the bulk of attorneys don't understand it).
>>
>> I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
>> subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
>> the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
>> privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
>> money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
>> this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
>> of 1812.
>Well, you could argue that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation,
>and that Congress does not grant titles of esquire. So with or without
>the amendment, we don't have these titles granted by Congress. Are you
>speaking of the power of the Court to grant titles to represent others
>at bar?
Precisely.
>> So I directly address this issue head on before the court can proceed
>> to trial, to get the prosecution to admit that such jurisdiction is
>> not being invoked. This limits the issues of their cause as the
>> nature has been swept away.
>How has the nature been "swept away?" Do you presume that they are
>proceeding at admiralty? They are proceeding in Rem against you as an
>object?
I am still working on this one.
>> I agree, however, are they not seizing property (my liberty) from me
>> by revoking a license to drive?
>A long history of case law shows that a person does not have the right
>to use public property for private profit. While you may have a right to
>travel, that does not include the ability to use the roads in the day to
>day course of commerce. A license is considered a property, which
>entitles you to due process before it can be revoked or suspended.
They are public roads, and I have a right to them. If the state is
going to license commerce, fine. I am not engaged in commerce.
>> So you stand on special appearance and challenge this in personam
>> jurisdiction until they prove it. Jurisdiction which is challenged
>> must the established before they can proceed to trial.
>>
>> I stipulate that the state has subject matter jurisdiction conferred
>> by the Constitution of Virginia (and from the commerce clause of the
>> federal constitution, given to the states for police power under the
>> declaratory 14th Amendment, and within enclaves by the Buck Act).
>> This is the statutory jurisidction for commerce we have spoken to
>> above.
>Well if you concede that they have it, why are you challenging it? My
>contention is that they haven't made any allegation that I was engaged
>in commercial activity. When such an allegation is necessary to bring me
>within the operation of the statute, it must be made; otherwise, the
>complaint proceeds on conclusions of fact.
Which is why I am trying to get them to admit to the subject matter
jurisdiction they are using. Challenging each element of whatever
subject matter jurisdiction they might use, since they will not
disclose it, at least lets me forget about that type later on, or to
object when they try to use evidence to support it.
>> But they cannot apply that to me in personam unless I am engaged in
>> corporate activity, or unless I am an artificial person due to
>> possession of an SSN, and thereby a federal citizen, resident in the
>> state.
>Well, your actual status doesn't matter that much. Commerce clause
>applies to individuals too. Since subject matter jurisdiction is what is
>in question here, why are you challenging in personam. Generally, there
>in personam jurisdiction is general, but the subject matter is special.
>You don't here traffic courts hearing bankruptcy cases for example...
Fine, I am not engaged in commerce.
>I don't care if I was within their territorial jurisdiction or not, I
>just don't want them to proceed unless they state all the elements of
>the offense (subject matter).
Jol Silversmith
In article <66hsu9$d...@camel19.mindspring.com>
bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com (Brad Barnhill) wrote:
>>> I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
>>> subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
>>> the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
>>> privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
>>> money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
>>> this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
>>> of 1812.
>>
>>And again, to learn why all this is just another extremist lie - and to
>>learn why extremists tell it - visit
>><http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html>.
>
>By one who would continue this subjugation.
No, by one who will continue to expose extremist lies, no matter what
insults or personal attacks to which they resort. Or would you care to
actually post something substantive in support of your claim that there is
a "missing thirteenth amendment"? I didn't think so.
Brad Barnhill
Luke <jungsk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Brad Barnhill wrote:
>> Of course, it is all Statutory Jurisdiction. But they have to have
>> the subject matter jurisdiction conveyed by the Constitution of the
>> state (in a traffic case) in order to attempt to attach it to me (in
>> personam).
>But what if they use an interstate commerce provision? What if they are
>taxing the private use of public property for profit under the Buck Act.
>Why would that come from the state constitution?
Fine. I am not engaged in commerce when I drive to see my mom.
>> I have a right to know the cause and nature of the
>> accusation. If I am being charged with a traffic offense, I want to
>> know the nature of the jurisdiction invoked (common, corporate,
>> admiralty, martial, equity, etc) before I can even address the issues
>> of the cause (the complaint, registration, contract, emergency,
>> agreement, etc) and am being deprived of this due to the skeletal
>> accusatory instruments being supplied (a traffic ticket, in this
>> instance).
>So why challenge the flag? Why not just address the complaint. All of
>there Notice to Appear complaints omit any reference to the provision
>that makes it an infraction. Certainly they can't commit you without
>first telling you it is a crime. After all, that IS the nature.
Because the complaint is so skeletal that I cannot see the subject
matter jurisdiction they are using to gain in personam.
>> Since I have this right guaranteed by the Constitution or Virginia at
>> Article I, Section 8, I am being deprived of due process if they do
>> not disclose the nature of the accusation in the particulars I have
>> specified.
>Still, what does that have to do with the flag?
The flag gives notice of admiralty, military or martial jurisdiction.
Is it any coincidence that falgs in courtrooms before 1938 were
displayed as banners against a wall sans fringe, instead of hanging as
though for a military unit on the march with the fringe?
>> Also, in order for the subject matter jurisdiction to be applied in
>> the first place, the summons or process issued must be consistent with
>> the jurisdiction being invoked. If not, the process is deficient.
>
>> Could you please lead me to a source which would help in this step
>> above?
>I've never challenged on anything like that before. In fact, I've never
>had them serve process on me outside of a "Courtesy Notice." I usually
>attack subject matter. If I were as dedicated as you, I'd probably
>attack every single point, but I don't really want to go to CHP admin
>boards or anything. I just want to defeat the ticket.
But they can only hve the subject matter jurisdiction in this
particular case if they are trying to attach thru martial law or
corporate law or admiralty law, none of which they will admit.
>> >These types of presumptions are what lead so many people to the
>> >slaughter. The blending of jurisdictions and the rules of construction
>> >make it so that you essentially have to be an attorney to understand how
>> >it works (and even the bulk of attorneys don't understand it).
>>
>> I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
>> subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
>> the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
>> privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
>> money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
>> this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
>> of 1812.
>Well, you could argue that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation,
>and that Congress does not grant titles of esquire. So with or without
>the amendment, we don't have these titles granted by Congress. Are you
>speaking of the power of the Court to grant titles to represent others
>at bar?
Precisely.
>> So I directly address this issue head on before the court can proceed
>> to trial, to get the prosecution to admit that such jurisdiction is
>> not being invoked. This limits the issues of their cause as the
>> nature has been swept away.
>How has the nature been "swept away?" Do you presume that they are
>proceeding at admiralty? They are proceeding in Rem against you as an
>object?
I am still working on this one.
>> I agree, however, are they not seizing property (my liberty) from me
>> by revoking a license to drive?
>A long history of case law shows that a person does not have the right
>to use public property for private profit. While you may have a right to
>travel, that does not include the ability to use the roads in the day to
>day course of commerce. A license is considered a property, which
>entitles you to due process before it can be revoked or suspended.
They are public roads, and I have a right to them. If the state is
going to license commerce, fine. I am not engaged in commerce.
>> So you stand on special appearance and challenge this in personam
>> jurisdiction until they prove it. Jurisdiction which is challenged
>> must the established before they can proceed to trial.
>>
>> I stipulate that the state has subject matter jurisdiction conferred
>> by the Constitution of Virginia (and from the commerce clause of the
>> federal constitution, given to the states for police power under the
>> declaratory 14th Amendment, and within enclaves by the Buck Act).
>> This is the statutory jurisidction for commerce we have spoken to
>> above.
>Well if you concede that they have it, why are you challenging it? My
>contention is that they haven't made any allegation that I was engaged
>in commercial activity. When such an allegation is necessary to bring me
>within the operation of the statute, it must be made; otherwise, the
>complaint proceeds on conclusions of fact.
Which is why I am trying to get them to admit to the subject matter
jurisdiction they are using. Challenging each element of whatever
subject matter jurisdiction they might use, since they will not
disclose it, at least lets me forget about that type later on, or to
object when they try to use evidence to support it.
>> But they cannot apply that to me in personam unless I am engaged in
>> corporate activity, or unless I am an artificial person due to
>> possession of an SSN, and thereby a federal citizen, resident in the
>> state.
>Well, your actual status doesn't matter that much. Commerce clause
>applies to individuals too. Since subject matter jurisdiction is what is
>in question here, why are you challenging in personam. Generally, there
>in personam jurisdiction is general, but the subject matter is special.
>You don't here traffic courts hearing bankruptcy cases for example...
Fine, I am not engaged in commerce.
>I don't care if I was within their territorial jurisdiction or not, I
>just don't want them to proceed unless they state all the elements of
>the offense (subject matter).
Brad Barnhill
Luke <jungsk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Brad Barnhill wrote:
>> Of course, it is all Statutory Jurisdiction. But they have to have
>> the subject matter jurisdiction conveyed by the Constitution of the
>> state (in a traffic case) in order to attempt to attach it to me (in
>> personam).
>But what if they use an interstate commerce provision? What if they are
>taxing the private use of public property for profit under the Buck Act.
>Why would that come from the state constitution?
I have already given a NOTICE OF VENUE and an AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS
OPPOSING VENUE and a DEMAND FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS.
I do not own a corporation, nor do I sit on the board of directors for
same. I do not leve in a federal enclave. All of this has been set
forth, and the Commonwealth's Attorney has no challenged for it. It
will be part of the record. I can probably get it judicially noticed.
>> I have a right to know the cause and nature of the
>> accusation. If I am being charged with a traffic offense, I want to
>> know the nature of the jurisdiction invoked (common, corporate,
>> admiralty, martial, equity, etc) before I can even address the issues
>> of the cause (the complaint, registration, contract, emergency,
>> agreement, etc) and am being deprived of this due to the skeletal
>> accusatory instruments being supplied (a traffic ticket, in this
>> instance).
>So why challenge the flag? Why not just address the complaint. All of
>there Notice to Appear complaints omit any reference to the provision
>that makes it an infraction. Certainly they can't commit you without
>first telling you it is a crime. After all, that IS the nature.
I do not want to waste the court's time explaining why I am objecting
to some evidence which is only applicable to admiralty, I want to get
them to adnit they are not proceeding in admiralty and then object
when they enter the evidence. The same for military or martial law
juirsdiction.
>> Since I have this right guaranteed by the Constitution or Virginia at
>> Article I, Section 8, I am being deprived of due process if they do
>> not disclose the nature of the accusation in the particulars I have
>> specified.
>Still, what does that have to do with the flag?
They give notice by their flag that they may proceed in admiralty,
military, or martial law jurisdictions. I simply p[oint out to the to
start with that none of that is applicable. Is it any coincidence
that flags in courtrooms and legislative chambers were non-fringed and
hung on the wall as banners before 1938?
>> Also, in order for the subject matter jurisdiction to be applied in
>> the first place, the summons or process issued must be consistent with
>> the jurisdiction being invoked. If not, the process is deficient.
>
>> Could you please lead me to a source which would help in this step
>> above?
>I've never challenged on anything like that before. In fact, I've never
>had them serve process on me outside of a "Courtesy Notice." I usually
>attack subject matter. If I were as dedicated as you, I'd probably
>attack every single point, but I don't really want to go to CHP admin
>boards or anything. I just want to defeat the ticket.
They have the subject matter jurisdiction in non-accident traffic
cases to regulate commerce. They are not going to bother to tell me
that this is the subject matter jurisdiction being invoked. I waste
the court's time if I attack each subject matter jurisdiction as we go
along, just get it over with to start with. Also, this challenge must
be made before i enter a plea, ask for leave of court for counsel, or
ask for a jury rather than a bench trial. If I proceed past
arraignment before challenging these jurisdictions, they are waived.
>> >These types of presumptions are what lead so many people to the
>> >slaughter. The blending of jurisdictions and the rules of construction
>> >make it so that you essentially have to be an attorney to understand how
>> >it works (and even the bulk of attorneys don't understand it).
>>
>> I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
>> subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
>> the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
>> privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
>> money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
>> this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
>> of 1812.
>Well, you could argue that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation,
>and that Congress does not grant titles of esquire. So with or without
>the amendment, we don't have these titles granted by Congress. Are you
>speaking of the power of the Court to grant titles to represent others
>at bar?
I could not challenge the federal reserve if I were a federal citizen,
as they have no standing to question the debt pursuant to the 14th
Article of Amendment, section 4. This is the importance of getting
judicial notice that I am a state citizen.
At the time of the ratification of the original 13th, members of the
bar and bankers were all "esquired" in Britain once they studied
overseas. People noticed that they were getting special privileges
from the government (to represent others before the bar, and to loan
money they did not have). This was whay they meant to stop. Anyone
in a privileged occupation conferred by the government could not
participate in the government. That was the intent. Imagine a world
where lawyers and bankers could not vote or sit in Congress.
>> So I directly address this issue head on before the court can proceed
>> to trial, to get the prosecution to admit that such jurisdiction is
>> not being invoked. This limits the issues of their cause as the
>> nature has been swept away.
>How has the nature been "swept away?" Do you presume that they are
>proceeding at admiralty? They are proceeding in Rem against you as an
>object?
I presume that I am being forced to perform to an undisclosed
international contract. They are proceeding on my non-performance to
that contract. I pray that this patriot mythology about the
bankruptcy of the nation is wrong, but I will not bet my life that it
is not true.
>> I agree, however, are they not seizing property (my liberty) from me
>> by revoking a license to drive?
>A long history of case law shows that a person does not have the right
>to use public property for private profit. While you may have a right to
>travel, that does not include the ability to use the roads in the day to
>day course of commerce. A license is considered a property, which
>entitles you to due process before it can be revoked or suspended.
Fine, I am not engaged in commerce. They are attempting to color me
with this law as though I am. All I want them to do is admit it.
A drivers license serves two purposes: to regulate commerce, and to
prove competency. (I wish I could spell). I do not mind going in and
proving that I am competent to drive, but I am not engaged in any day
to day exercise of commerce. I do not convey passengers for hire, nor
do I transport property for third parties.
>> So you stand on special appearance and challenge this in personam
>> jurisdiction until they prove it. Jurisdiction which is challenged
>> must the established before they can proceed to trial.
>>
>> I stipulate that the state has subject matter jurisdiction conferred
>> by the Constitution of Virginia (and from the commerce clause of the
>> federal constitution, given to the states for police power under the
>> declaratory 14th Amendment, and within enclaves by the Buck Act).
>> This is the statutory jurisidction for commerce we have spoken to
>> above.
>Well if you concede that they have it, why are you challenging it? My
>contention is that they haven't made any allegation that I was engaged
>in commercial activity. When such an allegation is necessary to bring me
>within the operation of the statute, it must be made; otherwise, the
>complaint proceeds on conclusions of fact.
Because I am not engaged in commercial activity, and I do not live in
a federal enclave.
>> But they cannot apply that to me in personam unless I am engaged in
>> corporate activity, or unless I am an artificial person due to
>> possession of an SSN, and thereby a federal citizen, resident in the
>> state.
>Well, your actual status doesn't matter that much. Commerce clause
>applies to individuals too. Since subject matter jurisdiction is what is
>in question here, why are you challenging in personam. Generally, there
>in personam jurisdiction is general, but the subject matter is special.
>You don't here traffic courts hearing bankruptcy cases for example...
Only if I convey passengers for hire or transport property as a common
carrier. I cannot tell what kind of jurisdiction this court wi
hearing, and they won't disclose it.
>I don't care if I was within their territorial jurisdiction or not, I
>just don't want them to proceed unless they state all the elements of
>the offense (subject matter).
Thank you for this clarification.
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
e:bra...@chv.mindspring.com
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
silv...@law.harvard.edu (Jol Silversmith) wrote:
>In article <66hsu9$d...@camel19.mindspring.com>
>bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com (Brad Barnhill) wrote:
>>>> I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
>>>> subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
>>>> the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
>>>> privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
>>>> money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
>>>> this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
>>>> of 1812.
>>>
>>>And again, to learn why all this is just another extremist lie - and to
>>>learn why extremists tell it - visit
>>><http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html>.
>>
>>By one who would continue this subjugation.
>No, by one who will continue to expose extremist lies, no matter what
>insults or personal attacks to which they resort. Or would you care to
>actually post something substantive in support of your claim that there is
>a "missing thirteenth amendment"? I didn't think so.
So anyone who would limit the government to its constitution is an
extremist. I sincerely apologize if you thought I have attacked you
personally, this was not my intention.
I think the record will reflect who gets the insults and personal
attacks, and who attempts to remain civil at all times.
The record of the original 13th can be found within the archives of
the General Assembly of Virginia, which was the last state necessary
to ratify it.
Jol Silversmith
In article <66ijfh$a...@camel20.mindspring.com>,
bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >>>> I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
> >>>> subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
> >>>> the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
> >>>> privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
> >>>> money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
> >>>> this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
> >>>> of 1812.
> >>>
> >>>And again, to learn why all this is just another extremist lie - and to
> >>>learn why extremists tell it - visit
> >>><http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html>.
> >>
> >>By one who would continue this subjugation.
>
> >No, by one who will continue to expose extremist lies, no matter what
> >insults or personal attacks to which they resort. Or would you care to
> >actually post something substantive in support of your claim that there is
> >a "missing thirteenth amendment"? I didn't think so.
>
> So anyone who would limit the government to its constitution is an
> extremist.
No. But people, like you, who put forward the lie that there is a "missing
thirteenth amendment" are.
[...]
> The record of the original 13th can be found within the archives of
> the General Assembly of Virginia, which was the last state necessary
> to ratify it.
A lie on both points, and without citations. Again, visit
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html to see a full debunking of this
extremist lie - and to learn why they tell it.
There are no records of Virginia's ratification of the amendment, only of
its erroneous publication as part of the Constitution. See The Revised
Code of the Laws of Virginia: Being a Collection of All Such Acts of the
General Assembly, of a Public and Permanent Nature, As are Now in Force,
vol. I, 30 (Richmond, Thomas Ritchie, 1819).
And Virginia never was in a position to make the amendment a part of the
Constitution, because it was never one state away from ratification. See,
e.g., Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, We the States 112
(1964).
Again: would you care to actually post something substantive in support of
your claim? I didn't think so.
Brooks Martin
Jol Silversmith wrote in message ...
>Again, visit http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html to see=20
>a full debunking of this extremist lie - and to learn why they tell it. =
I have never researched this topic. So, I can only hypothesize.
Couldn't your research could be as flawed as David Dodge's
research. In time the truth will be revealed about the 13th Amendment.
BTW, you cited Black's as the authority to define "esquire".
Provide us with a court decision that defines this term. You provided=20
many other terms which were defined in court decisions that were not
titles of nobility:
U.S. v. Smith, 1991 WL 326647 (Civ. A. No. 91-A-292-S, M.D.Ala. 1991)=20
"Taxpayer" is not a title of nobility.
U.S. v. Riley, 1991 WL 192115 (Civ. A. No. 89-1403-T, D.Kan. 1991)=20
"Magistrate" is not a title of nobility.
U.S. v. Singer, 1990 WL 161258 (No. 85-00283-01, E.D.Pa. 1990) =20
A "person" as defined in the tax code is not a title of nobility.
Woodson v. Davis, 887 F.2d 1082 (4th Cir. 1989) =20
"Officer of the Court" is not a title of nobility.
Hilgeford v. People's Bank, 113 F.R.D. 161 (N.D.Ind. 1986) =20
Being a lawyer is not a title of nobility.
Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F.Supp. 50 (E.D.Wis. 1985)=20
Employment by the I.R.S. is not a title of nobility.
Frederick v. Clark, 587 F.Supp. 789 (W.D.Wis. 1984)=20
Being a lawyer is not a title of nobility.
White v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1981 WL 11137 (No. 1183-80, =
U.S. Tax Ct. 1981) Having a degree is not a title of nobility.=20
Let's see one where the court rules that "esquire" is not a title of =
nobility.
Curious how something so insignificant (according to Mr. Silversmith) =
would
ever be "on the table" for ratification in the first place.
Regards,
Brooks Martin
John Gill
Brooks Martin mistakenly wrote in haste:
> In time the truth will be revealed about the 13th Amendment.
>
Well, we have had 132 years and three days for time to tell the truth.
What news are you going to give us now on the issue of slavery that has
taken this long for you to shine "truth" upon ~only now?~
--
- John J. Gill
GILL & COMPANY, CPAs
---------------------------------------------
- TAX SOLUTIONS: IRS problems, international
tax issues, general tax practice.
- TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS: remote access netwk'g
---------------------------------------------
http://www.taxlaws.com jg...@taxlaws.com
Brooks Martin
John, I didn't write anything in haste. The "missing" 13th Amendment
was proposed much earlier than the current 13th Amendment. Your 132
year figure is about 50 years off from the issue at hand. Slavery is not
being discussed in this thread. The titles and nobility amendment is =
being=20
discussed.
Mr. Dodge's claims are totally different than Mr. Silversmith's. If you=20
had taken the time to investigate this issue at all you'd realize that =
there are
some bizarre contradictions regarding this "missing" Amendment.
For instance, I have a copy of the Constitution (printed by the state of =
Tennessee) from 1824 which lists the "missing" 13th Amendment as the=20
actual 13th Amendment. There are many other states, including Virginia, =
which=20
have published official state documents listing the "missing" 13th
Amendment as the actual 13th Amendment.
For an example of what we're talking about visit:
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/orig13th.html
and;
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html
John, all of your fake name posting has you totally confused.=20
If you'd settle one one identity, namely YOURS, you might
be able to follow the discussions without looking like you're
asleep at the wheel.
Regards,
Brooks Martin
John Gill wrote in message <348DAF...@visi.net>...
>Brooks Martin mistakenly wrote in haste:
>
>> In time the truth will be revealed about the 13th Amendment.
>>=20
>
>Well, we have had 132 years and three days for time to tell the truth.=20
>What news are you going to give us now on the issue of slavery that has
>taken this long for you to shine "truth" upon ~only now?~
<snip advertisement>
Jol Silversmith
In article <66k9pv$6pt6$1...@newssvr07-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Brooks Martin"
<haze11...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >Again, visit http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html to see=
> >a full debunking of this extremist lie - and to learn why they tell it.
>
> I have never researched this topic. So, I can only hypothesize.
> Couldn't your research could be as flawed as David Dodge's
> research.
No. I provide citations for my claims. Ask him, for example, to provide
proof that the Virginia legislature considered the amendment. He won't,
because it didn't. Or that the Congress that proposed the amendment was
concerned about international bankers. He won't, because they ween't. Etc.
etc., etc.
> In time the truth will be revealed about the 13th Amendment.
The truth is here. There is no "missing thirteenth amendment."
> BTW, you cited Black's as the authority to define "esquire".
> Provide us with a court decision that defines this term.
I have not located a court decision that specifically states that
"esquire" is not a title of nobility. But only an extremist would think
that there is a chance that any court would do so - particularly given the
fact that court decisions that have pondered its definition have concluded
that "esquire" is fairly meaningless, and not limited only to attorneys,
and the fact that courts have rejected so many other frivolous claims
about "titles of nobility."
Additions of estate, as 'esquire,' 'gentlemen,' and the like.
These
titles can, however, be claimed by none, and may be assumed by any one.
Abernathy v. State, 187 So.2d 287, 289 n.1 (Ala. Ct. App.
1966)
By common acceptation . . . an 'esquire' has no relation to law. 'It is
often added to the names of poets or artists; and the term may be applied
to a landed proprietor or a country squire; that being one of courtesty,
indicating a gentleman publically attending or escorting a lady'. Nowhere
do we find that the term 'esquire' donotes an attorney at law.
Antonelli v. Silvestri, 137 N.E.2d 146, 147-48 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955)
[...]
> Curious how something so insignificant (according to Mr. Silversmith)
> would
> ever be "on the table" for ratification in the first place.
As noted on my web page, the history is sparse, but at the time, titles of
nobility and the influence of foreign nobility - such as the Bonaparates -
was a live concern. Quite possibly, the fact that it was so insignificant
is the reason that it was never ratified.
What is truly curious is that extremists think they can get away with
telling lies about the amendment, unsupported by any citations, and
usually in direct conflict with the facts.
Brooks Martin
Jol Silversmith wrote in message ...
>What is truly curious is that extremists think they can get away with
>telling lies about the amendment, unsupported by any citations, and
>usually in direct conflict with the facts.
I've noticed that all humans are capable of this type of behavior.
I do see your point. I sit on the side of the fence where this=20
seems to be the norm. I don't know how long you have followed
this newsgroup's postings but I will tell you that I am definitely
not in favor of a central federal government controlling all aspects
of everyone's lives. Any bizarre theory or notion could be nothing
more than a bizarre theory or notion. OTOH, there were some bizarre
notions which have proved to be factual. Remember that the earth
used to be flat.
I just found it interesting that the state I live in (Tennessee) printed =
out the=20
Constitution and included the "missing" 13th Amendment in 1824.
<snip reference to Mr. Dodge>
>I provide citations for my claims. Ask him, for example, to provide
>proof that the Virginia legislature considered the amendment. He won't,
>because it didn't. Or that the Congress that proposed the amendment was
>concerned about international bankers. He won't, because they weren't. =
Etc.
>etc., etc.
I would be more than happy to ask him if I had his number or his =
address.
Do you know how to reach him?=20
Regards,
Brooks Martin
John Gill
Brooks Martin babbled on:
>
> John, I didn't write anything in haste. The "missing" 13th Amendment
> was proposed much earlier than the current 13th Amendment. Your 132
> year figure is about 50 years off from the issue at hand. Slavery is not
> being discussed in this thread. The titles and nobility amendment is being
> discussed.
Try Article I, Section 9. It addresses the titles and nobility issue.
>
> Mr. Dodge's claims are totally different than Mr. Silversmith's. If you
> had taken the time to investigate this issue at all you'd realize that there are
> some bizarre contradictions regarding this "missing" Amendment.
No. Only thing bizarre, or bazzar, is your fuzzy logic.
>
> John, all of your fake name posting has you totally confused.
No doubt that must be it. btw -- what names have I used this ~month?~
You seem to keep a tally of ghosts, so inquiring minds like mine wanna
know.
Brad Barnhill
silv...@law.harvard.edu (Jol Silversmith) wrote:
>In article <66ijfh$a...@camel20.mindspring.com>,
>bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >>>> I agree, the creatinion of a guild of "high-priests" in effect has
>> >>>> subjugated the Citizen to be at their mercy. This was the purpose of
>> >>>> the original 13th Amendment: To keep those who are given a special
>> >>>> privilege (like representation of others in court, or to make loans on
>> >>>> money which does not exist), from being part of the government. But
>> >>>> this was quashed under force of arms and by subterfuge during the War
>> >>>> of 1812.
>> >>>
>> >>>And again, to learn why all this is just another extremist lie - and to
>> >>>learn why extremists tell it - visit
>> >>><http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html>.
>> >>
>> >>By one who would continue this subjugation.
>>
>> >No, by one who will continue to expose extremist lies, no matter what
>> >insults or personal attacks to which they resort. Or would you care to
>> >actually post something substantive in support of your claim that there is
>> >a "missing thirteenth amendment"? I didn't think so.
>>
>> So anyone who would limit the government to its constitution is an
>> extremist.
>No. But people, like you, who put forward the lie that there is a "missing
>thirteenth amendment" are.
>[...]
>> The record of the original 13th can be found within the archives of
>> the General Assembly of Virginia, which was the last state necessary
>> to ratify it.
>A lie on both points, and without citations. Again, visit
>http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html to see a full debunking of this
>extremist lie - and to learn why they tell it.
>There are no records of Virginia's ratification of the amendment, only of
>its erroneous publication as part of the Constitution. See The Revised
>Code of the Laws of Virginia: Being a Collection of All Such Acts of the
>General Assembly, of a Public and Permanent Nature, As are Now in Force,
>vol. I, 30 (Richmond, Thomas Ritchie, 1819).
>And Virginia never was in a position to make the amendment a part of the
>Constitution, because it was never one state away from ratification. See,
>e.g., Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, We the States 112
>(1964).
>Again: would you care to actually post something substantive in support of
>your claim? I didn't think so.
I wil not bother, considering you will simply dismiss it summarily.
Do you deny that the government is in the control of lawyers an
bankers? This is what the 13th was supposed to combat.
Jol Silversmith
In article <66kr6h$4id4$1...@newssvr07-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Brooks Martin"
<haze11...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> <snip reference to Mr. Dodge>
> >I provide citations for my claims. Ask him, for example, to provide
> >proof that the Virginia legislature considered the amendment. He won't,
> >because it didn't. Or that the Congress that proposed the amendment was
> >concerned about international bankers. He won't, because they weren't.
> >Etc.
> >etc., etc.
>
> I would be more than happy to ask him if I had his number or his
> address.
> Do you know how to reach him?
At least as of last year, his e-mail address was rom...@gate.net.
Here's a list of some questions about the "missing thirteenth amendment"
that I bet this supposed expert on it can't - or won't - answer:
1) What was the only Supreme Court decision to make reference to the
"missing thirteenth amendment"?
2) What amendments to the Constitution, prior to 1810, became part of the
Constitution only because they were ratified by states that joined the
Union after the amendment was proposed to the states?
3) What amendments to the Constitution, prior to 1810, were considered by
states that joined the Union after the amendment was proposed to the
states?
4) What did John B. Colvin write about the "missing thirteenth amendment"
in 1815?
5) How many amendments to the Constitution did Emma Willard's 1829
"History of the United States" claim had been ratified before the "missing
thirteenth amendment"?
6) What did the Supreme Court say about the constitutional amendment
process in Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221, 230 (1920)?
7) Where in the debates of the Virginia legislature of 1818-19 is the
"missing thirteenth amendment" mentioned?
8) What did Secretary of State John Quincy Adams write in a letter to the
House of Representatives on February 3, 1818?
9) What was written on page 23 of volume 1 of the 1829 "Revised statutes
of the state of New-York"?
10) What was written on page 23 of the 1855 edition of the "Statutes of Oregon"?
Gil Klohn
> Brooks Martin babbled on:
> > Mr. Dodge's claims are totally different than Mr. Silversmith's. If you
> > had taken the time to investigate this issue at all you'd realize that there are some bizarre contradictions regarding this "missing" Amendment.
>
> No. Only thing bizarre, or bazzar, is your fuzzy logic.
> >
> > John, all of your fake name posting has you totally confused.
>
> No doubt that must be it. btw -- what names have I used this ~month?~
> You seem to keep a tally of ghosts, so inquiring minds like mine wanna
> know.
yeah, the clones want to know too. what's the tally brooks?
Gil Klohn
Brooks Martin wrote:
> >What is truly curious is that extremists think they can get away with
> >telling lies about the amendment, unsupported by any citations, and
> >usually in direct conflict with the facts.
>
the norm? nothing normal about brooks!!!!!!!!
Phaedrus
In article <66l4k0$m...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
Brad Barnhill <bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>silv...@law.harvard.edu (Jol Silversmith) wrote:
>>Again: would you care to actually post something substantive in support of
>>your claim? I didn't think so.
>I wil not bother, considering you will simply dismiss it summarily.
>Do you deny that the government is in the control of lawyers an
>bankers? This is what the 13th was supposed to combat.
You know, I couldn't care less about the issue being discussed here.
But as a disinterested observer, I have to say this: Mr. Barnhill, if you
were deliberately trying to make yourself look like a loon, I don't think
it could be done much better than you're doing it right now. And if "the
missing 13th amendment" really did pass and get covered up, and you were
deliberately trying to get people _not_ to believe that, I don't think it
could be done much better than you're doing it right now.
Jol comes across as someone who has done some research on this, though
I haven't taken the time to verify the claims made. You, on the other hand,
come across as someone who has read someone else's rant about this and
decided to make it your life's passion, without taking the least bit of time
to learn anything about the subject for yourself. And, when someone asks you
to "post something substantive in support of your claim", you say that you
"will not bother, considering you will simply dismiss it summarily." Well,
there are only three responses to that:
*If you're really talking only to Jol Silversmith, and you don't care
about anyone else reading this thread, then would you _please_ take it to
email?
*If, on the other hand, you're trying to convince the readers of Usenet
that what you're saying is true, then what difference could it possibly make
whether Jol Silversmith dismisses it summarily or not?
*And if you believe that what you're saying is true, but you have so
little faith in your reasons for that belief that you think that I will
"dismiss it summarily", then I can only conclude that I _should_ dismiss your
belief summarily.
--
\o\ If you're interested in books and stories with transformation themes, \o\
/o/ please have a look at <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/>. /o/
\o\ FC1.21:FC(W/C)p6arw A- C->++ D>++ H+ M>+ P R T++++ W** Z+ Sm RLCT \o\
/o/ a cmn++++$ d e++ f+++ h- i++wf p-- sm# /o/
Dan Evans
>Do you deny that the government is in the control of lawyers an
>bankers? This is what the 13th was supposed to combat.
So now you are claiming that "banker" is a "title of nobility"?
I'm sure you have no support for that ridiculous claim, either.
Dan Evans **********************
*This is not legal advice unless
*you agreed to pay for it.
*http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
Jol Silversmith
In article <66l4k0$m...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >Again: would you care to actually post something substantive in support of
> >your claim? I didn't think so.
>
> I wil not bother, considering you will simply dismiss it summarily.
By citing actually facts and research that will disprove it. Funny, that.
> Do you deny that the government is in the control of lawyers an
> bankers?
Yes, but even if true, so what? The amendment would not have passed
Congress in 1810 without the support of the vast majority of the lawyers
then in Congress. So your theory therefore must be that they were so
concerned about their own influence that they decided to amend the
Constitution to exclude themsleves from office - an even more ridiculous
claim than usual. I've looked up the actual statistics - have you? No, of
course you haven't.
> This is what the 13th was supposed to combat.
A claim entirely unsupported by facts. In contrast, the limited
contemporary sources indicate that the concern was the influence of
foreign nobility. For example:
Representative Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina is recorded to have said,
when voting on the amendment, that "he considered the vote on this question
as deciding whether or not we were to have members of the Legion of Honor
in this country." 21 Annals of Cong. 2050 (1810).
According to one newspaper,the Federalists intended to use the amendment
as a "political trick," to show the subservience of the Republicans to
French influence, but the Republicans supported the amendment as "[i]t can
do no harm." "The Presidencyčµ·ational Conventions," Niles' Nat'l Reg.,
vol.
LXXII, May 15, 1847, at 166.
Again: Would you care to actually post something substantive in support of
your claim? I didn't think so.
--
William Dalton
Govt Waste
Jol Silversmith <silv...@law.harvard.edu> wrote in article
<silversm-071...@hls-silversm.student.harvard.edu>...
> In article <348B09...@spam.net>, Private Citizen <cit...@spam.net>
wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > When I applied for my SSN, I was told it was NOT to be used for ID. My
> > grand parents's SSN cards even have that written on the back side of
> > their cards.
>
> A statement which refers to the _card_, not the number.
>
> An expert for the Social Security Administration testified that the
> Administration frequently issues Social Security cards to elderly
people
> for the purpose of providing identification for cashing checks. She
> further testified that the legend "Not for Identification Purposes"
was
> dropped from the card in 1972 because individuals nevertheless were
using
> the cards for identification purposes.
>
> United States v. Quinteros, 769 F.2d 968, 970 (5th Cir. 1985).
>
> Appellant testified that he told the State patrolman that the bottom
of
> his social security card said "not for identification." He testified
that
> the use to which the social security number was to be put was limited
to
> social security purposes only. . . . We conclude that appellant was
not
> privileged to withhold his social security number from the State
patrolman.
>
> Ohio v. Hill, No. 993, 1992 WL 29184, *2-3 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. Feb. 6,
1992).
>
> Who ever those judges were, they need to read the Privacy Act of 1974.
Joe
Brad Barnhill
silv...@law.harvard.edu (Jol Silversmith) wrote:
>In article <66k9pv$6pt6$1...@newssvr07-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Brooks Martin"
><haze11...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> >Again, visit http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html to see=
>> >a full debunking of this extremist lie - and to learn why they tell it.
>>
>> I have never researched this topic. So, I can only hypothesize.
>> Couldn't your research could be as flawed as David Dodge's
>> research.
>No. I provide citations for my claims. Ask him, for example, to provide
>proof that the Virginia legislature considered the amendment. He won't,
>because it didn't. Or that the Congress that proposed the amendment was
>concerned about international bankers. He won't, because they ween't. Etc.
>etc., etc.
>> In time the truth will be revealed about the 13th Amendment.
>The truth is here. There is no "missing thirteenth amendment."
Or is there?
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/13table.html
Christopher Runkel of the National Archives acknowledged in 1994
that Virginia ratifed the original Thirteenth Amendment on March 12,
1819, and the evidence of the ratification by Virginia is the special
printing of 4000 copies as part of their organic state laws.
All of the other States, except New York, had either ratified the
Thirteenth Amendment or published it as part of their organic state
laws before the admission of Arkansas in 1836. By the time Iowa was
admitted, the original Thirteenth Amendment had been included in
official publications in every state except New York. The State of
Rhode Island, which had rejected this Amendment in 1814 included it in
their official publication of 1822!
Two copies of the five volume Bioren and Duane publication, "The
Laws of the United States of America, from the 4th of March, 1789 to
the 4th of March, 1815" are available in the archives of Yale
University. In the text of the U.S. Constitution given by Bioren and
Duane, on page 74, the "Titles of Nobility" section is listed as
Article XIII and the notation given indicates that it was passed out
of the Eleventh Congress in the Second Session. The Bioren and Duane
edition of 1815 was published by an Act of Congress. This publication,
in five volumes, represents the first authorized edition of the Laws
of the United States and the U.S. Constitution issued following the
destruction of the Library of Congress and the other records of the
government by the British army in 1814. The lawmakers then seated as
the Thirteenth Congress authorized the spending for this special
edition on February 16th, 1815. This was official recognition of the
ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment by the Congress of the United
States of America.
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
e:bra...@chv.mindspring.com
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
silv...@law.harvard.edu (Jol Silversmith) wrote:
>In article <66kr6h$4id4$1...@newssvr07-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Brooks Martin"
><haze11...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> <snip reference to Mr. Dodge>
>> >I provide citations for my claims. Ask him, for example, to provide
>> >proof that the Virginia legislature considered the amendment. He won't,
>> >because it didn't. Or that the Congress that proposed the amendment was
>> >concerned about international bankers. He won't, because they weren't.
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/13essay2.html
Virginia met in the spring of 1819 to authorize a new and
comprehensive version of their state's laws, including the United
States Constitution.
When it was published, agreed to on March 12, 1819 --and issued
for circulation at the end of the year and into 1820 -- it included
the Titles of Nobility Amendment as the valid Article 13, and a
special printing of four thousand copies was ordered. This was the
manner chosen by the Virginia legislature to announce and publish
their ratification of this Amendment. Recent research in the archives
of Virginia has revealed that multiple copies of this edition, also
known as VA2, were forwarded to the two houses of Congress in
Washington, to the President and to the Secretary of State. **Also one
copy of Virginia's organic laws, including the Thirteenth Amendment as
valid, was placed with the Library of Congress, where it remains to
this day.** For many years those who oppose recognition of this
controversial and important section of our Constitution, have argued
that because Virginia did not, apparently, send a "Letter" to then
Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, the ratification vote was
somehow nullified.
Because Article V does not stipulate that any such "Letter" be
sent, the authorized publication by the Virginia legislature, and the
now-documented transmission of VA2 to the House and Senate and
Secretary of State, must stand as pure and indisputable evidence of
ratification. Seventy-two times in the years between 1819 and 1876,
state or territorial editions of their organic laws have included this
Title of Nobility Amendment as the valid Article 13 -- and that is
entirely too many independent publications to be blamed on the
mistakes made in Bioren and Duane, 1815.
Almost immediately (after 1819), state editions of the organic
laws (and including the current Constitution of the United States with
Article 13 in place), and acts of the legislature were published.
North Carolina and Georgia have editions from 1819, Rhode Island has
one in 1822, and Massachusetts published the Amendment as being
ratified in 1823. The federalist bastion of Connecticut had four
different publications by 1839.
Virginia had every right to issue its ratification notice in such
a manner, it paid for the printing and thus the original Thirteenth
Amendment, barring foreign princes and powers from meddling in our
domestic political and business affairs, was ratified by thirteen of
the seventeen states in the union in 1810 -- and is now and has been a
lawful part of the United States Constitution, for 178 years.
It has also been suppressed and nearly forgotten since 1876.
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
e:bra...@chv.mindspring.com
========================================================
Bill Edwards
Brad Barnhill wrote:
> http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html
>
> Virginia had every right to issue its ratification notice in such
> a manner, it paid for the printing and thus the original Thirteenth
> Amendment, barring foreign princes and powers from meddling in our
> domestic political and business affairs, was ratified by thirteen of
> the seventeen states in the union in 1810 -- and is now and has been a
> lawful part of the United States Constitution, for 178 years.
I'm from Virginia,, how many of these organic laws still out there? do I
have
to worry about fresh princes?
Jol Silversmith
In article <66rmug$5...@camel12.mindspring.com>,
bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>> >I provide citations for my claims. Ask him, for example, to provide
>>> >proof that the Virginia legislature considered the amendment. He won't,
>>> >because it didn't. Or that the Congress that proposed the amendment was
>>> >concerned about international bankers. He won't, because they weren't.
>
>http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/13essay2.html
>
> Virginia met in the spring of 1819 to authorize a new and
>comprehensive version of their state's laws, including the United
>States Constitution.
>
> When it was published, agreed to on March 12, 1819 --and issued
>for circulation at the end of the year and into 1820 -- it included
>the Titles of Nobility Amendment as the valid Article 13, and a
>special printing of four thousand copies was ordered. This was the
>manner chosen by the Virginia legislature to announce and publish
>their ratification of this Amendment.
Here we go again - more of the same old extremist lies, without even a
single supporting citation.
Yes, the Virginia legislature met in 1819. Yes, the publication it
authorized contained the "missing thirteenth amendment." Etc. But what
proof is there that the publication was intended to be (much less could
be) a ratification? None at all.
I challenge you to cite the section of the debates of the Virginia
legislature where they so announce their intention. You won't, of course.
The legislature proposed and approved a bill to publish the Constitution,
laws of Virginia, etc. - not to add to them.
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an
edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the
following matters, that is to say: The Constitution of the United States
and
the amendments thereto. . . ."
Acts passed at the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia 50
(Richmond, Thomas Ritchie, 1819)
>Recent research in the archives
>of Virginia has revealed that multiple copies of this edition, also
>known as VA2, were forwarded to the two houses of Congress in
>Washington, to the President and to the Secretary of State.
And the relevance of this to whether there is a "missing thirteenth
amendment"? None at all.
>**Also one
>copy of Virginia's organic laws, including the Thirteenth Amendment as
>valid, was placed with the Library of Congress, where it remains to
>this day.**
And the relevance of this to whether there is a "missing thirteenth
amendment"? None at all. Even more than above, the transmission of copies
of state law compilations to the Library of Congress is standard practice.
I've consulted the copy in the LoC - there's nothing special about it.
>For many years those who oppose recognition of this
>controversial and important section of our Constitution, have argued
>that because Virginia did not, apparently, send a "Letter" to then
>Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, the ratification vote was
>somehow nullified.
Lie. There was no ratification vote to be nullified. I again challenge
you: Cite the vote in which the Virginia legislature voted to ratify the
amendment. You won't of course, because no such vote occurred. I've read
the debates of the Virginia legislature from 1819 - have you? No, of
course you haven't.
> Because Article V does not stipulate that any such "Letter" be
>sent, the authorized publication by the Virginia legislature, and the
>now-documented transmission of VA2 to the House and Senate and
>Secretary of State, must stand as pure and indisputable evidence of
>ratification.
In addition to your lies above: by your own logic, then, the fact that
Virginia thirty years later declared that the "missing thirteenth
amendment" had been published in error in 1819 must stand as pure and
indisputable evidence that it was not ratified. See The Revised Code of
Viriginia, with the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the
United States and the Declaration of Rights and Constituion of Virginia,
30 (Richmond, William F. Ritchie, 1849).
>Seventy-two times in the years between 1819 and 1876,
>state or territorial editions of their organic laws have included this
>Title of Nobility Amendment as the valid Article 13 -- and that is
>entirely too many independent publications to be blamed on the
>mistakes made in Bioren and Duane, 1815.
And again: not a single supporting citation.
When one examines the facts, it is easy to understand why the error was
repeated. In the 19th century, there were few secondry sources on the
Constitution; not until 1845 was a new, corrected edition of Statutes at
Large issued, for example. See A resolution to authorize the Attorney
General to contract for copies of a proposed edition of the law and
treaties of the United States, 5 Stat. 798 (1845).
> Almost immediately (after 1819), state editions of the organic
>laws (and including the current Constitution of the United States with
>Article 13 in place), and acts of the legislature were published.
>North Carolina and Georgia have editions from 1819, Rhode Island has
>one in 1822, and Massachusetts published the Amendment as being
>ratified in 1823. The federalist bastion of Connecticut had four
>different publications by 1839.
And don't forget the many editions of the Constitution that did not
contain the "missing thirteenth amendment," or explicitly noted that a
previous publication of it had been in error.
In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to [the Bioren
edition],
there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from
accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from
foreign
nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of
the 4th
of
February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives,
it
appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and
therefore
had not been adopted.
Revised statutes of the state of New-York, passed during the years one
thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, and one thousand eight hundred
and twenty-eight: to which are added, certain former acts which have not
been revised, vol. 1, 23 (Albany, John Duer, B.F. Butler, John C. Spencer,
1829).
> Virginia had every right to issue its ratification notice in such
>a manner,
And again: not a single supporting citation.
>it paid for the printing and thus the original Thirteenth
>Amendment, barring foreign princes and powers from meddling in our
>domestic political and business affairs, was ratified by thirteen of
>the seventeen states in the union in 1810 -- and is now and has been a
>lawful part of the United States Constitution, for 178 years.
Lie. Even if Virginia ratified the amendment, its ratifciation came too
late to matter. Amendments are not voted upon by only the states that were
members of the Union when it was proposed, but also by states that join
during the ratification process. If this was not true, the Bill of Rights
would not have become part of the Constitution until 1939. (And if you
don't understand why that would be the case, you shouldn't be trying to
argue about fine points of constitutional law.)
> It has also been suppressed and nearly forgotten since 1876.
Lie. Again, I challenge you to put forward proof. Let's see you cite a
single piece of evidence to support David Dodge's claims about
international bankers, etc. You won't, of course.
In fact, you won't cite any evidence at all. So far I've cited seven
sources that anyone can go to a library and look up for themselves, in
addition to the numerous cites on my web page. You've cited exactly zero.
--
Jol Andrew Silversmith __________________________ silv...@law.harvard.edu
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/home.html __________________ jsil...@nyx.net
Jol Silversmith
In article <66rlrv$i...@camel15.mindspring.com>,
bradbva#nos...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>> >Again, visit http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html to see=
>>> >a full debunking of this extremist lie - and to learn why they tell it.
>>>
>>> I have never researched this topic. So, I can only hypothesize.
>>> Couldn't your research could be as flawed as David Dodge's
>>> research.
>
>>No. I provide citations for my claims. Ask him, for example, to provide
>>proof that the Virginia legislature considered the amendment. He won't,
>>because it didn't. Or that the Congress that proposed the amendment was
>>concerned about international bankers. He won't, because they ween't. Etc.
>>etc., etc.
>
>>> In time the truth will be revealed about the 13th Amendment.
>
>>The truth is here. There is no "missing thirteenth amendment."
>
>Or is there?
>http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/13table.html
No, there isn't. Again, visit my web page at
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html to see a full debunking of this
extremist lie - and to learn why they tell it. Citing erroneous
publications of the "missing thirteenth amendment" no more makes it real
than citing publications of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" makes it
real. (But extremists do both. See Mike Lafferty, Disaffected citizens
trying to take law into their own hands, Columbus Dispatch, Dec. 17, 1995,
at 1A.)
> Christopher Runkel of the National Archives acknowledged in 1994
>that Virginia ratifed the original Thirteenth Amendment on March 12,
>1819, and the evidence of the ratification by Virginia is the special
>printing of 4000 copies as part of their organic state laws.
Provide a citation for this claim. You won't, of course.
And as I've explained before: Even if Virginia ratified in 1819, it's
ratification came far too late to matter; 16 ratifictions were then
required to make the amendment part of the Constitution. If this was not
true, the Bill of Rights would not have become part of the Constitution
until 1939. (And if you don't understand why that would be the case, you
shouldn't be trying to argue about fine points of constitutional law.)
[...]
> Two copies of the five volume Bioren and Duane publication, "The
>Laws of the United States of America, from the 4th of March, 1789 to
>the 4th of March, 1815" are available in the archives of Yale
>University. In the text of the U.S. Constitution given by Bioren and
>Duane, on page 74, the "Titles of Nobility" section is listed as
>Article XIII and the notation given indicates that it was passed out
>of the Eleventh Congress in the Second Session.
And an introductory note to the Bioren edition states that:
There has been some difficulty in ascertaining whether the amendment
proposed, which is stated as the thirteenth . . . has, or has not, been
adopted
by a sufficient number of the state legislatures to authorize its
insertion
as
part of the constitution? The secretary of state very readily lent every
suitable aid to produce full information on the question; but the evidence
to
be found in the office of that department is still defective. It has been
considered best, however, to publish the proposed amendment in its
proper place, as if it had been adopted, with this explanation, to prevent
misconception.
John Bioren and W. John Duane, eds., 1 Laws of the United States of
America, From the 4th of March 1789, to the 4th of March, 1815, ix
(Washington City, R.C. Weightman, 1815)
How convenient of you to forget to mention the above. Are you hiding the
facts about the "missing thirteenth amendment" to suit your extremist
agenda - or are you just ignorant of them?
>The Bioren and Duane
>edition of 1815 was published by an Act of Congress. This publication,
>in five volumes, represents the first authorized edition of the Laws
>of the United States and the U.S. Constitution issued following the
>destruction of the Library of Congress and the other records of the
>government by the British army in 1814. The lawmakers then seated as
>the Thirteenth Congress authorized the spending for this special
>edition on February 16th, 1815.
Which prompted Republican Representative Weldon Nathaniel Edwards of North
Carolina proposed a resolution on December 31, 1817 to ask President
Monroe to provide the House of Representatives with information as to "the
number of States which have ratified the Thirteenth article of the
amendments." The resolution was approved without opposition. See 31 Annals
of Cong. 530 (1817). Monroe's response was that the "missing thirteenth
amendment" had not become part of the Constitution. See 31 Annals of Cong.
866 (1818)
How convenient of you to forget to mention the above. Are you hiding the
facts about the "missing thirteenth amendment" to suit your extremist
agenda - or are you just ignorant of them?
>This was official recognition of the
>ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment by the Congress of the United
>States of America.
And again: not a single supporting citation. Not to mention a complete
failure to mention the above, that the publication was later confirmed to
be in error, based on a mistaken belief that South Carolina had ratified
the amendment.
Again, I challenge you to put forward proof. Let's see you cite a single
piece of evidence. So far I've cited eleven sources that anyone can go to
Andrew Lazarus
On 13 Dec 1997 14:34:33 GMT, silv...@law.harvard.edu (Jol
Silversmith) wrote:
>Lie. Again, I challenge you to put forward proof. Let's see you cite a
>single piece of evidence to support David Dodge's claims about
>international bankers, etc. You won't, of course.
It's just the teeniest thing to add, and it won't make any difference
in the face of crippling delusions, but the so-called privilege of
lending money one didn't have (known as fractional reserve banking)
POSTDATES this so-called amendment.
By the way, I imagine that keeping a tavern required a license of some
sort. Did this become a privileged occupation? A title of nobility?
(This idea that all the lawyers and bankers were sent to England to
get "esquired" reads like a Martian UFO tale.)
Lord Mansfield
Congress from time to time passed other laws providing for publication in
newspapers and for the printing and distribution of laws. Particularly
worthy of mention is the Bioren and Duane edition of the laws of the United
States. By an Act approved April 18, 1814 [3 Stat. at L. 129, ch. 69], it
was provided that the secretary of state was to contract with John Bioren
and W. John Duane of Philadephia, and with R. C. Weightman of Washington,
for a thousand copies of a proposed edition of the laws and treaties of the
United States. The edition was to be executed on a plan and in a manner
approved by the secretary of state and the attorney general, and the former
officer was to appoint an editor for the publication.(10)
10 John B. Colvin was appointed editor. He made the serious mistake in
volume 1 of including a thirteenth amendment of the constitution of the
United States which had not been ratified, and which never was subsequently
ratified. At the time of the error twelve states had ratified; thirteen
were needed. The proposed amendment deprived of citizenship any citizen
who accepted without consent of Congress, any title or emolument from a
foreign power. Ralph H. Dwan and Ernest R. Feidler, The Federal
Statutesēµ¦Their History and Use, 22 Minnesota Law Review, 1008, 1009-1010
(1937-38).
> silv...@law.harvard.edu (Jol Silversmith) wrote:
>
> >In article <66k9pv$6pt6$1...@newssvr07-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Brooks Martin"
> ><haze11...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Again, visit http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/nobility.html to see=
> >> >a full debunking of this extremist lie - and to learn why they tell it.
> >>
> >> I have never researched this topic. So, I can only hypothesize.
> >> Couldn't your research could be as flawed as David Dodge's
> >> research.
>
> >No. I provide citations for my claims. Ask him, for example, to provide
> >proof that the Virginia legislature considered the amendment. He won't,
> >because it didn't. Or that the Congress that proposed the amendment was
> >concerned about international bankers. He won't, because they ween't. Etc.
> >etc., etc.
>
> >> In time the truth will be revealed about the 13th Amendment.
>
> >The truth is here. There is no "missing thirteenth amendment."
>
> Or is there?
> http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/13table.html
>
>
> Christopher Runkel of the National Archives acknowledged in 1994
> that Virginia ratifed the original Thirteenth Amendment on March 12,
> 1819, and the evidence of the ratification by Virginia is the special
> printing of 4000 copies as part of their organic state laws.
>
> All of the other States, except New York, had either ratified the
> Thirteenth Amendment or published it as part of their organic state
> laws before the admission of Arkansas in 1836. By the time Iowa was
> admitted, the original Thirteenth Amendment had been included in
> official publications in every state except New York. The State of
> Rhode Island, which had rejected this Amendment in 1814 included it in
> their official publication of 1822!
>
> Two copies of the five volume Bioren and Duane publication, "The
> Laws of the United States of America, from the 4th of March, 1789 to
> the 4th of March, 1815" are available in the archives of Yale
> University. In the text of the U.S. Constitution given by Bioren and
> Duane, on page 74, the "Titles of Nobility" section is listed as
> Article XIII and the notation given indicates that it was passed out
> of the Eleventh Congress in the Second Session. The Bioren and Duane
> edition of 1815 was published by an Act of Congress. This publication,
> in five volumes, represents the first authorized edition of the Laws
> of the United States and the U.S. Constitution issued following the
> destruction of the Library of Congress and the other records of the
> government by the British army in 1814. The lawmakers then seated as
> the Thirteenth Congress authorized the spending for this special
> edition on February 16th, 1815. This was official recognition of the
> ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment by the Congress of the United
> States of America.
>
>
> ========================================================
> Brad Barnhill
> e:bra...@chv.mindspring.com
> ========================================================
> "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the
> government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the
> government of others? Or have we found angels in the form
> of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
> --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
> http://pages.prodigy.com/jefferson_quotes/
> ========================================================
--
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
- Tacitus (55-117 A.D.)