Phil Kane, our old friend.
Steve J. Quest
Was it widely known fact, or am I just stupid and didn't figure
it out. I have always understood that our old buddy, Phil Kane, was
a communications lawyer, however, recent research has uncovered that
Philip M. Kane is the Engineer in Charge of the Field Operations
Bureau (FOB) San Francisco office of the FCC! Did everyone else know
this already, and am I just slow? I found the evidence on the FCC
ftp and web site. Full context of the evidence appears below......sq
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554 FCC 95-23
In the Matter of )
)
The Conspiracy ) FOIA Control No. 94-160
)
On Request for )
Inspection of Records )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: January 12, 1995 Released: January 13, 1995
By the Commission:
1. The Commission has under consideration an Application for
Review filed by The Conspiracy, the newspaper of the San Francisco-
Bay Area Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. The appeal seeks
review of an initial ruling made by the former Field Operations
Bureau (FOB), concerning the denial of The Conspiracy's Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request. 5 U.S.C. 552. Letter from
Beverly G. Baker, Chief, FOB, to Betsy Johnson, Editor, The
Conspiracy (October 14, 1994). The request relates to
unauthorized broadcasts, in 1993, by Stephen Paul Dunifer in the
vicinity of Berkeley, California.
I. BACKGROUND
2. In April 1993, the FOB's San Francisco office received
information from two individuals indicating that an unauthorized FM
radio transmitter was operating on 88.1 MHz in the San Francisco
Bay area. Declaration of Philip M. Kane (Kane) at 9. A
subsequent investigation spanning several months in 1993 and 1994
by FOB engineers, involving the use of electronic radio direction-
finding equipment and other techniques, disclosed that Dunifer was
engaging in unauthorized radio operations in violation of Section
301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301.
The radio transmissions were on 88.1 MHz, a frequency set aside for
non-commercial educational FM broadcast stations. Additionally,
non-licensed, low-power transmitters may use that frequency
provided that they comply with certain technical specifications.
See 47 C.F.R. 15.239(b). The FOB investigation determined that
Dunifer's radio operations exceeded the authorized field strengths
for non-licensed transmissions. Moreover, Dunifer's operations
were observed to cause interference to radio stations KQED-FM, San
Francisco, California, and KECG(FM), El Cerrito, California.
Declaration of David K. Hartshorn at 15; Declaration of William
R. Zears, Jr. at 13; Kane Declaration at 24.
3. The FOB, acting pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), imposed a $20,000
forfeiture against Dunifer on November 8, 1993 for two unlicensed
broadcasts occurring on April 25 and May 2, 1993. Stephen Paul
Dunifer, NAL/Acct. No. 315SF0050 (FOB Nov. 8, 1993), application
for review pending.
4. On October 6, 1994, the United States brought suit under
Section 401(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 401(a),
against Dunifer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. That suit seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief and is based on 24 separate and unauthorized
broadcasts occurring from April 25, 1993 to May 8, 1994. United
States v. Dunifer, No. C94 3542 CW (see n. 3 above).
II. FOIA REQUEST
4. The Conspiracy's FOIA request, filed on May 19, 1994,
noted an August 1993 newspaper article in which Philip M. Kane, the
Engineer in Charge of the FOB's San Francisco office, was
attributed with the claim that his office had received complaints
from "several" licensed stations. Express, Aug. 13, 1993 at 14.
The FOIA request asked the Commission "to inform us of:" the
details regarding these complaints, which stations filed them, the
dates of the complaints, the nature of the complaints, and the
FCC's response to them.
5. In its October 14, 1994 letter ruling, the Bureau
responded that several informal inquiries or complaints, regarding
why stronger action had not been taken against Dunifer, had been
received from local broadcast engineer and consultant sources. The
FOB explained that the complaints and inquiries were made in person
or by telephone and that no documents or other records were
compiled regarding such communications. Additionally, the FOB
noted that the individuals responsible for the inquiries and
complaints had expressly requested confidentiality. Thus, the FOB
found that, even if records of these complaints did exist, the
identities of the individuals were exempt from mandatory disclosure
under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(D) and 47 C.F.R. 0.457(g)(4).
III. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
6. The Conspiracy challenges the FOB's claim that no records
of these inquiries and complaints exist. The Conspiracy assumes
that records of these complaints would routinely have been kept.
Moreover, The Conspiracy asserts that because its request sought
information concerning the Commission's response to citizen
complaints, the Commission should have disclosed all information
concerning the monitoring of Dunifer's operations. The Conspiracy
suggests that such documentation should include field notes of
Commission investigators and records compiled by the Commission
respecting Dunifer's Internet postings publicizing his operations.
7. Additionally, The Conspiracy contends that the Commission
waived the confidentiality of any alleged complaints by stations
KQED-FM and KECG(FM) because they appear to have been mentioned in
a newspaper article which reported an interview of FCC counsel
concerning the pending district court litigation.
8. The Conspiracy further requests that, if its application
for review is denied pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 0.461(i), it should be
treated as a new FOIA request covering all materials in the
Commission's possession regarding Dunifer's broadcasts and
activities.
IV. DISCUSSION
9. We will deny The Conspiracy's application for review. The
Conspiracy has shown no basis to believe that, contrary to the
express representations of Commission staff, any record was made or
ever existed reflecting the informal inquiries and complaints
referred to in The Conspiracy's FOIA request. We have no reason to
believe that these informal contacts were of a type that would have
been recorded in the ordinary course of business. In fact, the
public inquiries seem to be duplicative and, therefore, redundant
of information already received and compiled by the Commission.
10. As the sworn declarations indicate, the FOB initiated its
investigation of Dunifer's illegal broadcasts after receiving
information from two individuals in April 1993. Information,
indicating numerous and ongoing violations of the Communications
Act by Dunifer, was developed by FOB investigators during the
course of their investigation. Thus, there is no reason to infer
that the inquiries and complaints referred to by The Conspiracy had
any singular significance that would have warranted making a public
record of them, especially since those making the contacts wished
to remain anonymous and the information furnished tracked the
intelligence already gathered by the staff.
11. Similarly, because the inquiries and complaints referred
to by The Conspiracy did not give rise to or precipitate the
investigation of Dunifer, the investigation therefore was not a
"response" to these inquiries and the materials developed during
the investigation, e.g., notes and memoranda of FCC engineers
investigating Dunifer's illegal broadcasts, were not within the
scope of the FOIA request. In this regard, we do not adopt The
Conspiracy's overly literal interpretation of the FOB's statement
that: "the San Francisco Field Office response was to continue to
schedule field enforcement work to gather probative evidence of any
Communications Act violations involving Mr. Dunifer." Letter from
Baker to Johnson at 1. We read the Bureau's letter to mean that it
made no specific response to the public contacts but merely
continued its ongoing investigation.
12. Moreover, there is no support for The Conspiracy's
contention that the Commission indicated that stations KQED-FM and
KECG(FM) were the complainants and that the Commission thereby
waived the confidentiality of their identities. The sworn
declarations further indicate that interference to these stations
was observed by the FOB investigators, not that the stations had
made the complaints. Paragraph 2, supra. The interference to
KECG(FM) was observed by an FCC engineer on January 16, 1994, and
thus could not have been the subject of the August 1993 newspaper
article. See 4 above. To the extent that the newspaper article
relied on by The Conspiracy suggests that KECG(FM) was one of the
complainants to the Commission, the article is inconsistent with
the declarations to which it refers. San Francisco Daily Journal,
Nov. 28, 1994.
13. Although we find that the Bureau was entirely justified
in its response to The Conspiracy's request, we note that The
Conspiracy has clarified the scope of the records it now seeks in
its application for review. In this connection, however, we
believe that it would best conduce to efficient administration of
the public's business for The Conspiracy to file a new request
covering any material outside the scope of its original request.
V. ORDER
14. In view of the reasons explained above, IT IS ORDERED,
That the Application for Review, filed on December 14, 1994, by The
Conspiracy IS DENIED. The Requester may seek judicial review of
this decision pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B).
15. The Officials responsible for this action are the
following Commissioners: Reed E. Hundt, Chairman, James H. Quello,
Andrew C. Barrett, Rachelle B. Chong, and Susan Ness.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton
Acting Secretary
cra...@_102.1
In article , "Steve says...
>
>Was it widely known fact, or am I just stupid and didn't figure
>it out. I have always understood that our old buddy, Phil Kane, was
>a communications lawyer, however, recent research has uncovered that
>Philip M. Kane is the Engineer in Charge of the Field Operations
>Bureau (FOB) San Francisco office of the FCC! Did everyone else know
>this already, and am I just slow? I found the evidence on the FCC
>ftp and web site. Full context of the evidence appears below......sq
>
He has been removed from his position in the Corporate/Government, and
has since turned to the other side!! ( not really ) Representing Corporate
interests in the whoring of the airwaves for profit and greed.
All in all Phil could be of some use to us, but he is 'money motivated' and
will not come forth with anything that would tarnish his apperance to the
"Air-Pimps" who now employ him.
This is the story the way I have seen it in RRB, and elsewhere in the net.
Craven
102.1FM
Temple Terrace Community Radio
http://www.ldbrewer.com/pirate.html
ldbr...@flanet.com
Corona
In article <32C6CA...@concentric.net>, "Steve says...
>
>Was it widely known fact, or am I just stupid and didn't figure
>it out. I have always understood that our old buddy, Phil Kane, was
>a communications lawyer, however, recent research has uncovered that
>Philip M. Kane is the Engineer in Charge of the Field Operations
>Bureau (FOB) San Francisco office of the FCC! Did everyone else know
>this already, and am I just slow? I found the evidence on the FCC
>ftp and web site. Full context of the evidence appears below......sq
>
Yeah, by reading ba.broadcast in months gone by, it was made known that
he had his nose up the asses of those on the "7th floor" as he put it.
BUT! He got booted for some reason he wont talk about....
(snippette)
> 5. In its October 14, 1994 letter ruling, the Bureau
>responded that several informal inquiries or complaints, regarding
>why stronger action had not been taken against Dunifer, had been
>received from local broadcast engineer and consultant sources. The
>FOB explained that the complaints and inquiries were made in person
>or by telephone and that no documents or other records were
>compiled regarding such communications. Additionally, the FOB
>noted that the individuals responsible for the inquiries and
>complaints had expressly requested confidentiality. Thus, the FOB
>found that, even if records of these complaints did exist, the
>identities of the individuals were exempt from mandatory disclosure
>under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(D) and 47 C.F.R. 0.457(g)(4).
Yeah, Kane went around to several stations and using the weight of his
fcc post told them they had better complain about FRB even though they
may have never even heard of FRB or suffer big time. I think that
John Higdon guy was involved too. Kane is a big lying shitbag. Now you
know why I call him Darth Vader. He is about like Cancer Man on the Xfiles.
A hired goon. And even if the fcc fired his ass he is still trying to
screw us with his 'consulting' services (read fcc snitch and nab bitch)
and psy-op posts here in a.r.p... :-)
-Corona
Phil Kane
In a message to ALL dated 12-29-96 STEVE J. QUEST wrote:
SJQ> Was it widely known fact, or am I just stupid and didn't figure
SJQ> it out. I have always understood that our old buddy, Phil Kane, was
SJQ> a communications lawyer, however, recent research has uncovered that
SJQ> Philip M. Kane is the Engineer in Charge of the Field Operations
SJQ> Bureau (FOB) San Francisco office of the FCC! Did everyone else know
SJQ> this already, and am I just slow? I found the evidence on the FCC
SJQ> ftp and web site. Full context of the evidence appears below......sq
SJQ> Before the
SJQ> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
SJQ> Washington, D.C. 20554 FCC 95-23
SJQ> In the Matter of )
SJQ> )
SJQ> The Conspiracy ) FOIA Control No. 94-160
SJQ> )
SJQ> On Request for )
SJQ> Inspection of Records )
SJQ> MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SJQ> Adopted: January 12, 1995 Released: January 13, 1995
As everyone else knows, I stopped being a Fed when I left the
FCC on September 1, 1995 and have had a private law practice
representing and defending clients before the FCC ever since.
Sorry to break your bubble, Steve.
=== Philip M. Kane P.E./Esq. ===
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: phil...@toadhall.com (Phil Kane)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve J. Quest
Phil Kane wrote:
>
> As everyone else knows, I stopped being a Fed when I left the
> FCC on September 1, 1995 and have had a private law practice
> representing and defending clients before the FCC ever since.
>
> Sorry to break your bubble, Steve.
>
No bubble to break! Somehow I didn't know this. I was on the
newsgroup back in '95 (squ...@moonwatcher.avrtech.com) but must have
somehow missed this fact.
Glad to hear you're NOT working for the FCC, and I hope you
enjoy your work defending the corporate entities against the monolith.
sq
Steve J. Quest
Craven, @, 102.1 wrote:
>
> Your "friend" Phil has been outta the loop for about a year or so !
>
> He has been removed from his position in the Corporate/Government, and
> has since turned to the other side!! ( not really ) Representing Corporate
> interests in the whoring of the airwaves for profit and greed.
This I knew, I had no idea he was a former FCC agent! Of course
saying you're a former FCC agent is like claiming to be a former
PROSTITUTE. You are what you are.
>
> All in all Phil could be of some use to us, but he is 'money motivated' and
> will not come forth with anything that would tarnish his apperance to the
> "Air-Pimps" who now employ him.
Most people are driven by greed. He has to eat, so he has to
do something for money, but it would be nice if he were on OUR side,
especially if he's any good as a lawyer. I have to wonder tho, if we
were to ask him legal questions, would he answer honestly, or would he
keep up his "it's wrong to pirate" attitude?
>
> This is the story the way I have seen it in RRB, and elsewhere in the net.
I've seen it in his own posts. He is a lawyer, a person who
sells his friendship and loyalty for money. That says it all.......sq
(just wish he were on OUR side, we have so few lawyers on OUR side....)
Steve J. Quest
> >it out.
>
> fcc post told them they had better complain about FRB even though they
> may have never even heard of FRB or suffer big time. I think that
> John Higdon guy was involved too. Kane is a big lying shitbag. Now you
> know why I call him Darth Vader. He is about like Cancer Man on the Xfiles.
> A hired goon. And even if the fcc fired his ass he is still trying to
> screw us with his 'consulting' services (read fcc snitch and nab bitch)
> and psy-op posts here in a.r.p... :-)
> -Corona
Why would ANYONE _try_ to get a MicroPower broadcaster shut down?
That would be like turning in your mother for reusing postage stamps!
BIG FRIGGIN' DEAL! A flea-power station might pull listeners...
HELLO! If Dunifer was pulling listeners, time for them to change
their format to what the PEOPLE want to hear! I doubt Kane "got" them
to complain, moreover he convinced them to complain by making them aware
of it. Who knows what motivates people, it's nice to know that you and I
are motivated by _freedom_ and not some form of righteousness or greed.
sq
Radio Man
In article <32C6CA...@concentric.net>, "Steve J. Quest"
<Squ...@concentric.net> wrote:
Well well well. Looks like Kane was instrumental in going after Dunifer.
Looks like he has a personal vendetta against all of us.
> subsequent investigation spanning several months in 1993 and 1994
> by FOB engineers, involving the use of electronic radio direction-
> finding equipment and other techniques, disclosed that Dunifer was
> engaging in unauthorized radio operations in violation of Section
> 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301.
> The radio transmissions were on 88.1 MHz, a frequency set aside for
> non-commercial educational FM broadcast stations. Additionally,
> non-licensed, low-power transmitters may use that frequency
> provided that they comply with certain technical specifications.
> See 47 C.F.R. 15.239(b). The FOB investigation determined that
> Dunifer's radio operations exceeded the authorized field strengths
> for non-licensed transmissions. Moreover, Dunifer's operations
> were observed to cause interference to radio stations KQED-FM, San
> Francisco, California, and KECG(FM), El Cerrito, California.
> Declaration of David K. Hartshorn at 15; Declaration of William
> R. Zears, Jr. at 13; Kane Declaration at 24.
Can anybody, Dunifer himself preferably, confirm this? Did he really
broadcast at one time on 88.1?
(forfeiture notice snipped)
> II. FOIA REQUEST
(snipped to save bandwidth)
> IV. DISCUSSION
>
> 9. We will deny The Conspiracy's application for review. The
> Conspiracy has shown no basis to believe that, contrary to the
> express representations of Commission staff, any record was made or
> ever existed reflecting the informal inquiries and complaints
> referred to in The Conspiracy's FOIA request. We have no reason to
> believe that these informal contacts were of a type that would have
> been recorded in the ordinary course of business. In fact, the
> public inquiries seem to be duplicative and, therefore, redundant
> of information already received and compiled by the Commission.
So a public action must remain guarded by secrecy worthy of the Roswell
Incident? What could they possibly be afraid of? ;)
>
> 10. As the sworn declarations indicate, the FOB initiated its
> investigation of Dunifer's illegal broadcasts after receiving
> information from two individuals in April 1993. Information,
> indicating numerous and ongoing violations of the Communications
> Act by Dunifer, was developed by FOB investigators during the
> course of their investigation. Thus, there is no reason to infer
> that the inquiries and complaints referred to by The Conspiracy had
> any singular significance that would have warranted making a public
> record of them, especially since those making the contacts wished
> to remain anonymous and the information furnished tracked the
> intelligence already gathered by the staff.
Well, surely the FCC would keep records on complainants. Could it be that
the complainants were the two aforementioned stations themselves, who were
scared of a little competition?
>
> 11. Similarly, because the inquiries and complaints referred
> to by The Conspiracy did not give rise to or precipitate the
> investigation of Dunifer, the investigation therefore was not a
> "response" to these inquiries and the materials developed during
> the investigation, e.g., notes and memoranda of FCC engineers
> investigating Dunifer's illegal broadcasts, were not within the
> scope of the FOIA request. In this regard, we do not adopt The
> Conspiracy's overly literal interpretation of the FOB's statement
> that: "the San Francisco Field Office response was to continue to
> schedule field enforcement work to gather probative evidence of any
> Communications Act violations involving Mr. Dunifer." Letter from
> Baker to Johnson at 1. We read the Bureau's letter to mean that it
> made no specific response to the public contacts but merely
> continued its ongoing investigation.
But I thought that the investigation of Dunifer was begun after these
complaints!
>
> 12. Moreover, there is no support for The Conspiracy's
> contention that the Commission indicated that stations KQED-FM and
> KECG(FM) were the complainants and that the Commission thereby
> waived the confidentiality of their identities. The sworn
> declarations further indicate that interference to these stations
> was observed by the FOB investigators, not that the stations had
> made the complaints. Paragraph 2, supra. The interference to
> KECG(FM) was observed by an FCC engineer on January 16, 1994, and
> thus could not have been the subject of the August 1993 newspaper
> article. See 4 above. To the extent that the newspaper article
> relied on by The Conspiracy suggests that KECG(FM) was one of the
> complainants to the Commission, the article is inconsistent with
> the declarations to which it refers. San Francisco Daily Journal,
> Nov. 28, 1994.
Trust us, it wasn't the stations that complained!
>
> 13. Although we find that the Bureau was entirely justified
> in its response to The Conspiracy's request, we note that The
> Conspiracy has clarified the scope of the records it now seeks in
> its application for review. In this connection, however, we
> believe that it would best conduce to efficient administration of
> the public's business for The Conspiracy to file a new request
> covering any material outside the scope of its original request.
Which will again be denied.
Steve J. Quest
Radio Man wrote:
>
> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> alt.radio.pirate)
>
> > 2. In April 1993, the FOB's San Francisco office received
> > information from two individuals indicating that an unauthorized FM
> > radio transmitter was operating on 88.1 MHz in the San Francisco
> > Bay area. Declaration of Philip M. Kane (Kane) at 9. A
>
> Looks like he has a personal vendetta against all of us.
So, you didn't know either?
> > The radio transmissions were on 88.1 MHz, a frequency set aside for
>
> Can anybody, Dunifer himself preferably, confirm this? Did he really
> broadcast at one time on 88.1?
I can confirm it, he started out broadcasting only on 88.1, and
it wasn't until _after_ the NAL that he moved to the commercial portion
of the FM spectrum.
> > 9. We will deny The Conspiracy's application for review. The
> > Conspiracy has shown no basis to believe that, contrary to the
> > express representations of Commission staff, any record was made or
> > ever existed reflecting the informal inquiries and complaints
> > referred to in The Conspiracy's FOIA request. We have no reason to
>
> So a public action must remain guarded by secrecy worthy of the Roswell
> Incident? What could they possibly be afraid of? ;)
What are they afraid of? You and I and the rest of us here!
That's why the penalty for broadcasting without a license (without any
form of control measure applied to your content) is punished so
severely. Take for example, a murder occured here and was reported on
the news last night. I was reading about the forfeiture amounts assessed
at the time ($7500 for Yoder, $20000 for Dunifer) when the news reported
the bond set for a murder suspect was $5000 and he was out already. It
is less severe (in the eyes of the law) to murder someone (so long as
you don't murder a COP) than to broadcast illegally.
> > 13. Although we find that the Bureau was entirely justified
> > in its response to The Conspiracy's request, we note that The
> > Conspiracy has clarified the scope of the records it now seeks in
> > its application for review. In this connection, however, we
> > believe that it would best conduce to efficient administration of
> > the public's business for The Conspiracy to file a new request
> > covering any material outside the scope of its original request.
>
> Which will again be denied.
Although they practice draconian measures and most severe fine
amounts for pirate operation, we still have a way out. It is easy in
the good old USA to be poor. I'm poor, I haven't had to pay taxes in
over 3 years (get all of it back). If I ever get busted, and they fine
me, and try to get money out of me, I have a way out, the same way
Bernard Guetz(sp?) got out of paying the millions of dollars to that
black youth who tried to stab him in the subway, I'll simply declare
bancruptcy when/if they file a judgement against me...............sq
(we still have ONE right in the USA, the right to be poor..........)
John Lundgren
Steve J. Quest (Squ...@concentric.net) wrote:
: Steve J. Quest wrote:
: (former subject: Re: Phil Kane, our old friend.)
: > Although they practice draconian measures and most severe fine
: > amounts for pirate operation, we still have a way out. It is easy in
: > the good old USA to be poor. I'm poor, I haven't had to pay taxes in
: > over 3 years (get all of it back). If I ever get busted, and they fine
: > me, and try to get money out of me, I have a way out, the same way
: > Bernard Guetz(sp?) got out of paying the millions of dollars to that
: > black youth who tried to stab him in the subway, I'll simply declare
: > bancruptcy when/if they file a judgement against me...............sq
: >
: > (we still have ONE right in the USA, the right to be poor..........)
: After all this talk about losing rights, draconian measures to
: prevent victimless crimes (radio, drugs, etc.) I have to wonder...
I think you're being deceptive again. Declaring bankruptcy can get you
out of many debts but from what I've read, government liens are *not* one
of them. The gummint can still hold the lien over your head. Of
course if you don't have anything and you don't earn anything, then they
can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Or can they? Ask Willie Nelson.
: What do the people in OTHER COUNTRIES think about the USA now?
: I have to ask this question, as I know they're out there. Is it more
: free in their contries? What's the laws like in other parts of the
: world. Can you be jailed for what you say, or what mood/mind altering
: substancs you take into your body? Do you have more severe penalties
: for pirate radio than for murder? Do they have manditory minimum
: sentences for drug possession and NO MINIMUM for murder? (fact: in the
: USA you will get out of jail quicker for violent crime than for drug
: crimes as there is NO MANDITORY MINIMUM for violent crime)
You had better start to get your "facts" straight again. From what I've
read, there are some states that try some crimes in federal court because
they have minimum sentencing where the state doesn't. When you make
a declaration of "fact", what you say doesn't mean anything unless it is
backed up by some reference to where this "fact" comes from. So stop
making declarations without a shred of evidence.
: I'm curious about these things, I know UK readers are here,
: what's it like in YOUR contry? What happens to YOU if you get caught,
: or is it legal to pirate? Here, they can take your home (forfeiture)
: for fines, and they have government auctions all the time where people
: actually buy other peoples property STOLEN BY THE GOVERNEMENT!
: Incredible, but true, and going on all the time in "the land of the free"
There ya go again, I tol' ya a million times not to exaggerate. STOLEN
by the government isn't true. When something is stolen, it is done
illegally. The gummint may take your possessions, but they do it
according to law, or else you have your day in court. You may not get
anything out of that day, but you get it.
: sq
--
#===================================================================#
| John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs. | jlundgre@ |
| Rancho Santiago Community College District | deltanet.com |
| 17th St at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 | http://www.rancho|
| My opinions are my own, and not my employer's. | .cc.ca.us |
| Most FAQs are available through Thomas Fine's WWW FAQ archive: |
| http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/FAQ-List.html |
| "Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times... keep on swinging." |
| says the lid on the jar of Laredo & Lefty's Picante Salsa |
! You MAY NOT use my email address for unsolicited Email or lists! !
#======P=G=P==k=e=y==a=v=a=i=l=a=b=l=e==u=p=o=n==r=e=q=u=e=s=t======#
Steve J. Quest
John Lundgren wrote:
>
> : > black youth who tried to stab him in the subway, I'll simply declare
> : > bancruptcy when/if they file a judgement against me...............sq
> : >
> : > (we still have ONE right in the USA, the right to be poor..........)
>
> : After all this talk about losing rights, draconian measures to
> : prevent victimless crimes (radio, drugs, etc.) I have to wonder...
>
> I think you're being deceptive again. Declaring bankruptcy can get you
> out of many debts but from what I've read, government liens are *not* one
> of them. The gummint can still hold the lien over your head. Of
> course if you don't have anything and you don't earn anything, then they
> can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Or can they? Ask Willie Nelson.
I watched the trial of Bernard Guetz(sp?) where he was found
guilty in civil court (maybe that's the key, CIVIL) and sentenced to
pay several millions of dollars to the black youth who tried to stab
him and rob him on the subway (but got the suprise of his life, a bullet
in the spine and a wheelchair for life). Right after the verdict, the
lawyers for Guetz filed bancruptcy and thus, he doesn't have to pay now.
I'm not a lawyer (obviously) so I need to know, will this protect
one from being forced to pay an FCC NAL? I mean, once they start to
try to collect via garnesheeing of wages, forfeiture, etc., can you file
bancruptcy and have the "supposed debt" removed?
Also, what did they do to Willie Nelson? Isn't he the long-hair
country singer who used to put on Farm Aid to help save our national
treasure the Independent American Farmer? What did the pigs do to him?
And why isn't anyone coming to arms to defend him?
> : What do the people in OTHER COUNTRIES think about the USA now?
> : I have to ask this question, as I know they're out there. Is it more
> : free in their contries? What's the laws like in other parts of the
> : world. Can you be jailed for what you say, or what mood/mind altering
> : substancs you take into your body? Do you have more severe penalties
> : for pirate radio than for murder? Do they have manditory minimum
> : sentences for drug possession and NO MINIMUM for murder? (fact: in the
> : USA you will get out of jail quicker for violent crime than for drug
> : crimes as there is NO MANDITORY MINIMUM for violent crime)
>
> You had better start to get your "facts" straight again. From what I've
> read, there are some states that try some crimes in federal court because
> they have minimum sentencing where the state doesn't. When you make
> a declaration of "fact", what you say doesn't mean anything unless it is
> backed up by some reference to where this "fact" comes from. So stop
> making declarations without a shred of evidence.
Or in the state I live in, they first try you (drug charges) in
state court, under state laws, and once convicted, THEN try you all over
again in FEDERAL court, and make you stay both in state and federal
prison for the crime, first serving one then the other sentence. THIS
my friend, I can prove, it is big in the news where I live. Nobody, and
I mean NOBODY likes it, even tho they claim it will "win the war on some
drugs".
> : I'm curious about these things, I know UK readers are here,
> : what's it like in YOUR contry? What happens to YOU if you get caught,
> : or is it legal to pirate? Here, they can take your home (forfeiture)
> : for fines, and they have government auctions all the time where people
> : actually buy other peoples property STOLEN BY THE GOVERNEMENT!
> : Incredible, but true, and going on all the time in "the land of the free"
>
> There ya go again, I tol' ya a million times not to exaggerate. STOLEN
> by the government isn't true. When something is stolen, it is done
> illegally. The gummint may take your possessions, but they do it
> according to law, or else you have your day in court. You may not get
> anything out of that day, but you get it.
You think forfeiture for illegal broadcasting is right? Should
they take Dunifer's car, sell it at auction, and then keep coming back
until they get their $20,000 and leave him alone? IS THAT RIGHT? You
may be technically correct, in saying that it is legal for them to do
it, but it was LEGAL for jews to be burned in death camps in Nazi
germany. Legal doesn't mean it is right you know..................sq
(the gummint is building death camps [again, in the name of the war on
some drugs] here in the USA. They look just like Nazi concentration
camps. Just built one 25 miles north of me, and it makes people very
nervous. Who are they going to put in there? Why is it big enough to
imprison thousands of people? We want answers to these questions.....)
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5a9u6v$9...@news04.deltanet.com> jlun...@delta1.deltanet.com (John
Lundgren) writes:
>
>Steve J. Quest (Squ...@concentric.net) wrote:
>: Steve J. Quest wrote:
>
>: (former subject: Re: Phil Kane, our old friend.)
>
>: > Although they practice draconian measures and most severe
fine
>: > amounts for pirate operation, we still have a way out. It is easy
in
>: > the good old USA to be poor. I'm poor, I haven't had to pay taxes
in
>: > over 3 years (get all of it back). If I ever get busted, and they
fine
>: > me, and try to get money out of me, I have a way out, the same way
>: > Bernard Guetz(sp?) got out of paying the millions of dollars to
that
declare
>: > bancruptcy when/if they file a judgement against
me...............sq
>: >
>: > (we still have ONE right in the USA, the right to be
poor..........)
>
>: After all this talk about losing rights, draconian measures to
>: prevent victimless crimes (radio, drugs, etc.) I have to wonder...
>
>I think you're being deceptive again. Declaring bankruptcy can get
you
>out of many debts but from what I've read, government liens are *not*
one
>of them. The gummint can still hold the lien over your head. Of
>course if you don't have anything and you don't earn anything, then
they
>can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Or can they? Ask Willie Nelson.
>
>
>: I have to ask this question, as I know they're out there. Is it
more
>: free in their contries? What's the laws like in other parts of the
>: world. Can you be jailed for what you say, or what mood/mind
altering
Newsgroups: alt.radio.pirate
Subject: Re: NON-USA readers please reply.
References: <32C6CA...@concentric.net> <1996123009...@india.midtown.net> <32C820...@concentric.net> <32C829...@concentric.net> <5a9u6v$9...@news04.deltanet.com>
In <5a9u6v$9...@news04.deltanet.com> jlun...@delta1.deltanet.com (John
Lundgren) writes:
>
>Steve J. Quest (Squ...@concentric.net) wrote:
>: Steve J. Quest wrote:
>
>: (former subject: Re: Phil Kane, our old friend.)
>
>: > Although they practice draconian measures and most severe
fine
>: > amounts for pirate operation, we still have a way out. It is easy
in
>: > the good old USA to be poor. I'm poor, I haven't had to pay taxes
in
>: > over 3 years (get all of it back). If I ever get busted, and they
fine
>: > me, and try to get money out of me, I have a way out, the same way
>: > Bernard Guetz(sp?) got out of paying the millions of dollars to
that
>: > black youth who tried to stab him in the subway, I'll simply
declare
>: > bancruptcy when/if they file a judgement against
me...............sq
>: >
>: > (we still have ONE right in the USA, the right to be
poor..........)
>
>: After all this talk about losing rights, draconian measures to
>: prevent victimless crimes (radio, drugs, etc.) I have to wonder...
>
>I think you're being deceptive again. Declaring bankruptcy can get
you
>out of many debts but from what I've read, government liens are *not*
one
>of them. The gummint can still hold the lien over your head. Of
>course if you don't have anything and you don't earn anything, then
they
>can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Or can they? Ask Willie Nelson.
>
>
>: What do the people in OTHER COUNTRIES think about the USA now?
>: I have to ask this question, as I know they're out there. Is it
more
>: free in their contries? What's the laws like in other parts of the
>: world. Can you be jailed for what you say, or what mood/mind
altering
>: sdu/hypertext/faq/usenet/FAQ-List.html |
>| "Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times... keep on swinging." |
>| says the lid on the jar of Laredo & Lefty's Picante Salsa |
>! You MAY NOT use my email address for unsolicited Email or lists! !
>#======P=G=P==k=e=y==a=v=a=i=l=a=b=l=e==u=p=o=n==r=e=q=u=e=s=t======#
>
Since I'm not in the U.S. or U.S.A. and in one of the several States, I
hope you don't mind this reply.....(BTW, I'm in the u.S.A.)
Sure... Here's a short I wrote...
Article by Burton James, PD, DJ, Chief engineer
at NLNR 102.1 FM, Seattle, Washington Republic
(not a "federal Area")
10/31/96
So-called Federal Jurisdiction & the Micro-broadcaster.
How strange it seems in this so-called information age, that the
average
American is afraid of the so-called jurisdictions ficticiously imposed
by
the fed! Could it be that they have unknowingly given the fed's
authority
over them to the extent that they fear for their very existance? Did
some
agency of government, or an employee of that agency convince them that
they had to comply with the statutory regs of the U.S. of D.C. in order
to
be "one of the people", or, "one with the people"? This Private
(C)itizen
challenges anyone to dis-prove any of the following statements!
1). Congress was granted authority over 10 square miles that is known
as
the District of Columbia, and the possessions. ( Puerto Rico, Guam,
American
Samoa and the Virgin Islands, Docks, Shipyards, Magazines,
Fortifications,
and other needful buildings. Plus Interstate Commerce). NOTHING MORE!
2). The F.C.C. is a branch agency of Congress of the U.S. of D.C.
3). The Corporation of the United States of the District of Columbia is
a
Bankrupt Nation.
4). The United States of the District of Columbia is a "Foreign Nation"
and
separate from the "several states".
5). The citizenry of the "several States" are not subject to the
statutory
jurisdictions of the Congress of the United States of the District of
Columbia, unless they have "knowingly", and "voluntarily" given up
their
Birthright/herritage as Citizens of the several sovereign States in
exchange
for "privileges and immunities" as described by the 14 th Amendment,
which
is commercial by nature, and have entered in "Interstate Commerce"
which is
one of the few jurisdictions under control by the Congress of the
United
States of D.C.
6). There are three separate entities all calling themselves "The
United
States"
7). There are "NO Documents" in any of the national archives to even so
much as suggest that the "Fed" was granted authority to impose any
jurisdiction over the several States, or the Citizenry thereof.
8). When one contracts with the Fed, one gives up access to the first
ten
Amendments to the Bill of Rights. (supreme Court decision of 1967).
(A Socialist Security Card constitutes a contract)!
9). There IS NO LAW that requires "anyone" to obtain or possess a SSN
to
work in America.
10). Use of the Zip Code has nothing to do with "speedy mail delivery",
and
actually is prima-facie evidence of "residency" in a "Federal Area",
and it
is all the Fed needs to prove that one is liable for the statutory
regulations of the United States of D.C., and then impose jurisdiction.
11). A station license is no different than a drivers license. One asks
for
"permission" to excercise a right. The supreme Court has stated
numerous
times that the Citizen of the several States has the right to travel,
but,
the U.S. citizen has the privilege to drive. Why would it be any
different
for a Radio station that is not owned by a corporation?
12). If you are a "person" then you are a "corporation". The Congress
of
the U.S. of D.C. has declared that "persons are corporations", and,
only
corporations and "licensed privileged capacities" are taxable, and
subject
to the statutory regs of Congress.
13). One is a Citizen until one contracts rights away, then becomes a
"person".
14). If a Citizen of one of the several States was told by, say, the
government of Germany, that he had to pay the taxes and abide by the
laws
of Germany, wouldn't that Citizen tell the German government to take a
flying leap into a rolling donut? The U.S. of D.C. is a "foreign
Government"! Why don't Americans tell them to do likewise?
15). The Mission statement of the F.C.C. states that the "agency" is
bent
on the control of "Interstate Commerce". How many Micro's actually
transmit
over State lines, or accept Federal Reserve notes for their airtime?
How
many are owned by "corporations"?
What it all boils down to is..... If you have a SSN, Drivers license,
Car
title registered with the corporate state, a house listed for taxation
that
you believe you own, sign a W2, W4, or 1040 form, Use the zip code on
your
mail ( check the judicial district against the first number of the zip,
I
bet they match!), register to vote as a U.S. citizen,and accept and use
Federal Reserve notes without reservation of Rights per UCC 1-207, then
you
better not be a Microbroadcaster! You will need to ask for permission
from
the Fed to excercise that privilege! But, if you are not under contract
to
the Fed for your citizenship, then burn the airwaves up! Free Radio
Berkely
got lucky, that's all! The time will come when it will all blow up in
his
face! AND BIG!! But if he was to revoke and rescind his contracts with
the
Fed, he would have more gound to stand up on and act like the American
the
Founding Fathers intended him to be. You see, NOBODY was born a
U.S.citizen,
unless they were born in the U.S. of D.C. or in any of the possessions.
It's like the so-called "Income Tax". Nobody is actually liable for it
unless, they were born in D.C., or are a corporation, or in a licensed
privileged capacity, or have made themselves liabile for it by
admittance
to being liabile for it! (US citizen). NLNR in Seattle, Washington
Republic,
is not under the jursdictions of the Fed simply because it and I are
not
"residents" of any Federal area. It is not owned by any corporation,
even
by way of the SSN! This Private Citizen is a State Citizen, and will
fight
to the death when anyone calls me a U.S. citizen!
While it may be true that the FCC is being scaled back, all micro
owners
who call themselves U.S. citizens had better take care of bussiness,
and
get rid of them contracts of compliance with the Fed. While your at it,
set up shop in a hard to get to place. F.E.M.A. has been set up to do
so
much more than pay you off when your house gets flattened by a
tornado. For many, it will be an agonizing re-appraisal!
Want to know more on flushing the Fed, or just want proof?
Please direct all response to NLNR1...@juno.com
or http://pages.prodigy.com/RFAmerica NLNR 102.1 FM
Seattle, Washington Republic (not a Federal area)
Re-Gain what the Fed has decieved you out of!
Real freedom, does not include "color of freedom"!
Free people do not bend down to kiss the boots of tyrants!
Steve J. Quest
Anonymous wrote:
>
> >> > Bay area. Declaration of Philip M. Kane (Kane) at 9. A
> >
>
Now I don't feel so stupid. :)
> > I can confirm it, he started out broadcasting only on 88.1, and
> >it wasn't until _after_ the NAL that he moved to the commercial portion
> >of the FM spectrum.
>
> Oh. Well, KQED is on 88.5, I believe, and I have no idea where the other
> station mentioned is. If his first transmitter wasn't that great, then he
> could have interfered with KQED.
KQED was off the air at 10pm, he went on the air at midnight.
There is an 88.1 educational station here that's only on until 3pm each
day, I've been thinking how nifty it would be just to "extend" their
hours. :) Just start up the moment they go off, and use their call
sign. It might work, it might fool people. The only way you might
get caught is if the station manager tunes in the frequency after he
shuts down the transmitter for some reason. Oops!
>
> I'm on a fixed income-SSI. If they take that away from me, I have NOTHING.
> Good luck trying to collect from a homeless guy.
Why are you on SSI? You looked healthy enough in your picture!
:) I thought they cracked down on that and are making people work now,
a guy who is now dating one of my ex-girlfriends who still feels the
need to call me every night, was on SSI disability. They up and decided
one day to check him out. He was out 3-wheeling, pretty rough sport
for someone with chronic back pain, unable to get out of bed! They are
making him pay it all back too! He was getting almost $500 a month.
Now she has to get a job too. I'll never understand why all my ex-
girlfriends feel the need to stay in touch with me. I have two of them
still attached. :-/ And of course, I hear all about everything in their
lives, whether I want to or not. Maybe that's it, I listen. Maybe if
I started to not listen... :) Nah, that would be rude..............sq
(and NOBODY has EVER accoused me of being... RUDE! :)
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <32C93B...@concentric.net> "Steve J. Quest"
<Squ...@concentric.net> writes:
>John Lundgren wrote:
>>
>> : > black youth who tried to stab him in the subway, I'll simply
declare
>> : > bancruptcy when/if they file a judgement against
me...............sq
>> : >
>> : > (we still have ONE right in the USA, the right to be
poor..........)
>>
>> : After all this talk about losing rights, draconian measures
to
>> : prevent victimless crimes (radio, drugs, etc.) I have to wonder...
>>
>> I think you're being deceptive again. Declaring bankruptcy can get
you
>> out of many debts but from what I've read, government liens are
*not* one
>> of them. The gummint can still hold the lien over your head. Of
>> course if you don't have anything and you don't earn anything, then
they
>> can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Or can they? Ask Willie Nelson.
>
>guilty in civil court (maybe that's the key, CIVIL) and sentenced to
>pay several millions of dollars to the black youth who tried to stab
>him and rob him on the subway (but got the suprise of his life, a
bullet
>in the spine and a wheelchair for life). Right after the verdict, the
>lawyers for Guetz filed bancruptcy and thus, he doesn't have to pay
now.
>
> I'm not a lawyer (obviously) so I need to know, will this protect
>one from being forced to pay an FCC NAL? I mean, once they start to
>try to collect via garnesheeing of wages, forfeiture, etc., can you
file
>bancruptcy and have the "supposed debt" removed?
>
> Also, what did they do to Willie Nelson? Isn't he the long-hair
>country singer who used to put on Farm Aid to help save our national
>treasure the Independent American Farmer? What did the pigs do to
him?
>And why isn't anyone coming to arms to defend him?
>
now?
>> : I have to ask this question, as I know they're out there. Is it
more
>> : free in their contries? What's the laws like in other parts of
the
>> : world. Can you be jailed for what you say, or what mood/mind
altering
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <posto...@staff.juno.com>
Received: from localhost (localhost)
by m8.boston.juno.com (8.6.13/8.7.Alpha.4/1.34.kim) with internal id
LAC18609;
Thu, 2 Jan 1997 11:32:36 -0500
Return-path: postoffice
To: nlnr1...@juno.com
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 11:32:36 -0500
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Message-ID: <1997010216...@m8.boston.juno.com>
X-Status: Read
This is a MIME-encapsulated message
--LAC18609.852222756/m8.boston.juno.com
The original message was received at Thu, 2 Jan 1997 11:25:55 -0500
from nlnr1...@juno.com
----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
Squ...@concentric.net (unrecoverable error)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mailhost.concentric.net.:
>>> RCPT To:<Squ...@concentric.net>
<<< 550 <Squ...@concentric.net>... User unknown
550 Squ...@concentric.net... User unknown
----- Original message follows -----
--LAC18609.852222756/m8.boston.juno.com
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Received: (from nlnr1...@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
id LfG00858; Thu, 02 Jan 1997 11:25:55 EST
To: Squ...@concentric.net
Subject: Re: NON-USA readers please reply.
Message-ID: <19970102.082450.8...@juno.com>
References: <1996123119...@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com>
<32CAE8...@concentric.net>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-47,72-75
From: nlnr1...@juno.com (Burton James)
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 11:25:55 EST
On Wed, 01 Jan 1997 14:44:49 -0800 "Steve J. Quest"
<Squ...@concentric.net> writes:
>
>>
>> Me thinks I sees a typo... Don't you mean U.S.? There are three
>> entities all calling themselves the United States. One is the United
>> States of D.C. which attempts to deceive everyone into their
>> citizenship status and jurisdiction. If one is born in any state,
>> he/she is not a U.S. citizen, but a State Citizen and not subject to
>> the jurisdictions of that foreign nation. The second is the u.S.A.
>> which is a collection of separate and independent nation/states
>bound
>> together in a common cause by a piece of hemp fiber paper known as
>the
>> Constitution, which is supposed to hold the Nation of the U.S. of
>D.C.
>> in check from exercising unlawful judicial and punitive authority
>over
>> the Sovereign Citizens of the Sovereign Nation/States. The third is
>the
>> land mass of the collection of all of the above to include the
>foreign
>> nation of the U.S. of D.C. These definitions can be found in various
>> laws and rulings issued by the Congress of D.C. and the supreme
>Court.
>>
>> Hope this helps...
>>
>> B.J. at NLNR1...@juno.com
>
> I am a regular listener to Amerinet broadcasting, have it on
>right now on the shortwave (WGTG). What you say is true, however,
>just
>_try_ it! Like it or not, you are owned by the foreign nation known
>as the US of DC. In reality, only the blacks and immigrants not born
>here are citizens of DC but somehow the courts think we ALL are, so
>just try to fight the system. So far, everyone who has, has failed.
>Usually, they roll in tanks and flamethrowers, and survivors go to
>federal prison for longer sentences than violent criminals..........sq
>
>(isn't it great to live in "the land of the free"?)
>
> http://www.l0pht.com/~oblivion/blkcrwl/patriot.html
>
>>>> this is the _best_ patriot FTP site in the country IMHO. <<<
>
I (and 37 million others) have tried it. As a common-law attorney, I
must
state that I have lost only one court case out of 97, which isn't bad.
Since all my holdings are placed into a foreign trust, the so-called
powers that be do not own me or mine. As far as the ranks that get the
tanks and flamethrowers, those are what is known as the "patridiots".
And
as far as the blacks go, the supreme Court has stated in numerous cases
that anyone, white, black, or otherwise born in any one of the several
States, is a State Citizen/American National until they give up their
status as such. I have a good number of colleagues who also win in the
court system. Also, I have been to 10pht.com and have been disappointed
at the outdated material in that void. This isn't the land of the free,
but the land of "color of freedom". People are slowly waking up to
these
realities as evidenced by the growing numbers of our ranks. One of my
associates handles 500 cases per month getting "legislated persons" out
of the system, and back into what was originally theirs by birthright.
I
have yet to see anyone who exits that system of tyranny properly, go to
club fed. Only those who get it half way and then go off half cocked,
with wet powder, wind up having their heads crushed by tanks. One of my
colleagues is famous for getting a judge a week either off the bench,
or
thrown in jail. If one knows how to work that system, he can use it
against them quite well! We have a large amount of resources available
to
anyone who wishes to regain their common-law heritage/birthright, and
we're not afraid to help them. That's why I have made my services
available to any micro broadcaster who wants to fight back. I do not
fear
them, and neither do any of my colleagues.
B.J. at NLNR1...@juno.com
--LAC18609.852222756/m8.boston.juno.com--
-=Tony=-
In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>
This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted mind?
Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
writes:
>
>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com
>) writes:
>>
>
> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted mind?
>
> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>
> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>
>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com
>) writes:
>>
>
> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted mind?
>
> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>
> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>
Get the gripe off of your peanut sized stiffy you brain dead idiot.
READ THE LAWS!
They only apply to U.S. citizens who are "RESIDENTS" of the federal
areas. Eat your own defication and expire, you supporter of the
communist democracy!
B.J.
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
writes:
>
>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Corona
In article <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, anth...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
>Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>>
>
> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted mind?
>
> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>
> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>
Not everyone has that problem Tony. Try some Beano.
-Corona
Steve J. Quest
-=Tony=- wrote:
>
> In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
> Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
> >
>
> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
> sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted mind?
>
> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
> he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>
> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
He or she reminds me of Thomas Jefferson, while you seem to
remind me of Benedict Arnold. :-/ At least there are a few people
who wish to see America that "land of the free" once again........sq
(as for me, I think I'll leave this country and renounce my citizenship
[as if I ever was a federal citizen] and taste sweet freedom in some
other country. I just have to find the one that suits me best......)
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
writes:
>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
>Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>>
>
> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted mind?
>
> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>
> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>
From: lab...@ix.netcom.com( )
Newsgroups: alt.radio.pirate
Subject: Re: NON-USA readers please reply.
References: <32C6CA...@concentric.net>
<1996123009...@india.midtown.net> <32C820...@concentric.net>
<32C829...@concentric.net> <5a9u6v$9...@news04.deltanet.com>
<32C93B...@concentric.net> <5ah2pl$5e2
@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
writes:
>
>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com
>) writes:
>>
>
> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted mind?
>
> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>
> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>
Get the gripe off of your peanut sized stiffy you brain dead idiot.
READ THE LAWS!
They only apply to U.S. citizens who are "RESIDENTS" of the federal
areas. Eat your own defication and expire, you supporter of the
communist democracy!
>(signed)< B.J.
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5arfbt$m...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Burton
James) writes:
>
>In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>writes words from his rectum:
>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind? Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind?>>Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>
>Get the gripe off of your peanut sized stiffy you brain dead idiot.
>READ THE LAWS! They only apply to U.S. citizens who are "RESIDENTS" of
>the federal areas. Eat your own defication and expire, you supporter
>of the communist democracy!
>
>
0. The Issue
With respect to US citizenship and SSNs, there are two claims made:
1) that US citizens are required to file taxes and the IRS requires
taxpayers to obtain an SSN; and 2) that there is another class of
citizenship whose members do not have to file taxes and are not
subject to most federal regulations.
The first claim is undeniably true. US citizens must definitely file
taxes and the IRS definitely requires taxpayers to obtain SSNs.
A summary of the argument for the second claim follows.
1.1. Classes of Citizenship
There are two distinct and separate classes of citizenship: 1) State
Citizenship, which has existed since before and after the Union was
formed; and 2) US citizenship, which has existed only since the 14th
Amendment (which actually created the class of US citizenship).
By Common Law birthright everyone who is born in a State is a
Sovereign Citizen of the State in which they were born.
1.2. Common Law
Common Law is the basis of the U.S. Constitution and the various State
constitutions. Common Law derives from English law, and is largely
uncodified. Common Law is approached as axiomatic, and provides that
people have inalienable (or "natural") rights that cannot be taken
away by governmental entities. [1]
1.3. The Nature of Sovereignty
The term Sovereign has very special meaning in law. It is from Common
Law and derives from the body of law applicable to Kings (Sovereigns).
A Sovereign is not necessarily subject to any higher authority.
However, if one is not a Sovereign then one is subject to some higher
authority.
There are three classes of Sovereigns in the United States: "We The
People", the State Governments, and the Federal Government. Hence, a
State Citizen is a Sovereign.
Each Sovereign State Citizen, with respect to every other Sovereign
State Citizen, is a Sovereign. Each State, with respect to every
other State, is a Sovereign. The United States of America ("the US"),
as a country, is a Sovereign with respect to every other country in
the world.
The Sovereign "We The People" created the States. The States are
subject to the Sovereign We The People that created them. The
Sovereign States created the US. The US is subject to the Sovereign
States that created it.
1.4. Classes of Constitutions
Each State has two constitutions: 1) an original Common Law
constitution with which the State, as a Sovereign Country whose form
of government was required to be a Republic (not quite the same thing
as a Democracy), entered into the Union; and 2) a Corporate
constitution created sometime after the State entered into the Union
and had incorporated.
California, for example, has two Constitutions: the original Common
Law constitution of 1849, and the statutory law ("Corporate")
constitution of 1879. Both constitutions are still in effect. The
Corporate constitution cites the original Common Law constitution and
is a substitute for it. The term substitute has special meaning in
law. It does not mean "to replace" or "to supersede". [2]
The State Constitutions and the Federal Constitution are documents
specifically creating and delineating the powers and restrictions of
the created government. All other powers are to remain with the
People and all powers granted to the government are from the People.
The Constitutions give a Sovereign Citizen no rights whatsoever,
because a Sovereign Citizen already possessed all rights possible:
the Citizen was and is the ultimate Sovereign in this country.
The Constitutions simply acknowledge and state the preexistence of
these "inalienable rights" and guarantee that the government will not
in any way infringe or take away these rights.
Among other things, the various Constitutions state that any
government shall not infringe on the right of individuals to enter
into contracts.
1.5. The Nature of the District of Columbia
Each State in the Union is a separate Country. This is stated by US
Supreme Court Cases and Congressional Record, most recently in 1968.
Late in the 18th century, 13 separate countries agreed to form a Union
and to create a 14th separate country called the District Of Columbia.
The land for the Federal District of Columbia was taken from the
country of Maryland. [3]
Washington D.C. and all States are separate countries with respect to
each other. Therefore, any entity, whether a person or a corporation,
while residing in another country, is a foreigner (an "alien").
The US Government (of the District of Columbia) is a foreign/alien
corporation with respect to each State.
1.6. Classes of Citizenship Revisited
Sovereign State Citizenship is a Common Law birthright. That status
was not and is not created by the State or the United States; it is
axiomatic.
US citizenship was created by the 14th amendment to the Constitution,
hence US citizens are subject to the US government.
A Sovereign State Citizen (or briefly, a State Citizen) is not subject
to the US government in the same way that a US citizen is. A State
Citizen has the full protections of all of the restrictions on the US
Government that the US constitution provides.
State Citizens are Citizens of exactly one State. The US Constitution
guarantees that every State shall treat Citizens of every other State
while within that State as if they were Citizens of their State.
US citizens are citizens only of the District Of Columbia. They are
not State Citizens of the State in which they reside. They are
technically Franchises of the Corporation called the US Government.
Any US citizen residing in one of the 50 states is considered to be a
resident alien of that state, and not a Citizen of that state---and,
as a special point in law, is "residing" in that State, as opposed to
being "domiciled" there.
A State Citizen is subject to common law and the original state
constitution. The Common Law constitution can be invoked in court by
a State Citizen. The Corporate constitution does not apply to a State
Citizen. [4]
The Corporate constitution of a State does apply to a resident/alien.
All modifications to the original Common Law constitution contained
in the Corporate constitution do apply to residents/aliens.
1.7. The Nature of Income Taxes
Both the US Constitution and the State Constitutions do allow for
excise taxes.
The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that
Congress may impose taxes on income. [5]
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the income tax is an excise tax
because it is a tax on the earnings of corporate franchises (i.e. US
citizens) and hence is an excise tax. [6]
Because a US citizen is a Franchise of a foreign corporation with
respect to the State, and is residing in the State, that citizen pays
some income taxes to a special state entity. In California, that
entity is the Franchise Tax Board and the tax is called the Resident
Income Tax.
State Citizens are not subject to the Resident Income Tax since they
are not residents of the State and are not aliens with respect to the
State. [7]
State Citizens are not citizens of the District Of Columbia and
therefore
they are not subject to the District Of Columbia's income tax.
1.8. The Nature of the Social Security Tax
Social Security was first implemented in 1935, originally not as a tax
per se. The Social Security Act of 1935 was repealed in 1938 and
reenacted as a direct tax on all US citizens. It is a direct tax
because the Social Security Act of 1938 states that the revenues can
be used for "any other purposes". [8]
The Social Security tax today is a direct tax called FICA, and the
revenue collected from payees is directly given to recipients.
However, the revenue is considered part of the general tax revenues
(e.g. those collected from taxes on incomes and other sources),
and can be spent in any way specified by Congress.
The courts have ruled that Social Security disbursements are "gifts"
from the government. However, the US Government is free to do with
the monies whatever it wishes.
Social Security taxes are not refundable.
Since State Citizens are not US citizens they are not subject to
social security tax. The social security tax is voluntary.
[A] Each Sovereign State after entering into the Union eventually
incorporated. Each State has two flags: the Sovereign State flag
and the Corporate State flag. The Corporate constitution is the
constitution that is full of all of the Statutory "laws" that
apply to its residents. Anything the Corporate State creates is
subject to it. The US Government is also a Corporation.
The US also has two flags: the Sovereign United States flag and
the Federal Corporate flag which, with Gold fringe, is also a
military or martial law flag.
[B] The District of Columbia cannot become a state, because the land
belongs to Maryland.
[C] If one examines many of the "laws" on the books and the Corporate
Constitution of a State one will find that they are carefully
written
so as not to apply to State Citizens. They are written to apply to
all
the residents/foreigners/aliens/corporations (aka "Persons", i.e.
non-State Citizens) residing in the state. Of course, virtually
everyone in every state is a resident alien ("Person") since they
are all citizens of the US. (State Citizens are "Sovereigns,"
and, under statutory law, not "Persons".)
[D] The tax laws, as written by the US Congress, are not actually Laws
(with a capital L) at all but are codes (or contract laws).
The laws most certainly are valid for US citizens. Persons who
claim the tax laws are unconstitutional are also wrong:
there are US Supreme Court cases stating in clear and certain terms
that the "income tax" is actually an excise and hence is not
unconstitutional. In addition there are US Supreme Court cases
stating in clear and certain terms that the tax laws apply to US
citizens even if they earn all of their income outside of the US
with no direct or indirect economic involvement with US.
The mere fact that one is a US citizen empowers the IRS to
determine
one's Federal income tax liability. The IRS usually forces
US citizens to "voluntarily" determine that liability themselves.
[E] There are court rulings stating that the income tax as it now
stands has nothing to do with---and never has had anything to do
with---the 16th amendment.
[F] Do Citizens of Thailand (a foreign country) pay their taxes to the
US
Government? No. State Citizens are considered non-resident
aliens with respect to the District of Columbia. There is an IRS
form W-8, "non-resident alien declaration", that exempts one from
the Federal Income tax. If one files a W-8, the IRS will
eventually send one a letter stating that one is exempt from all
Federal tax liability.
[G] Many persons today, especially older persons, still claim that the
Social Security tax is not a direct tax and is like an account into
which they have paid and from which they expect all of "their"
invested
money back plus some. But that is only as it was originally
implemented and stated to the American People, and has not applied
since 1938.
3. Analysis
3.1. Questions of Status and Jurisdiction
The key legal issue seems to be one of Status. Is one's status under
law Sovereign or Subject? Status is critical to any legal proceeding
so that proper and legal jurisdiction can be determined. It is
beginning to look like the outcome of any given case, whether argued
before the US Supreme Court or some other court, is ultimately
affected by Status and Jurisdiction. Another key legal issue which
ultimately affects Status are the terms "domiciled in/living in" and
"resides in/residing in". According to law a citizen of his own
country is domiciled in or lives in his country. A foreigner/alien or
diplomat while "living in" a country not his own resides in or is
residing in that country.
The question then in court is which constitution one can invoke. The
constitution that one can invoke is totally dependent upon one's
Status.
3.2. Contracts and Social Security
A State Citizen or US citizen is entering into a contract by obtaining
a driver's license, a credit card, a bank account, a social security
card, by filing income tax returns, etc. Once one is party to a
contract the terms of that contract are in full effect and actually
are law for the parties of the contract and fully enforcible to the
full extent of the Law.
The governments and courts must make sure the terms of the contract
are followed to the letter. This is what the Federal Government and
State Governments are supposed to do and are doing with great effect.
They enforce the terms of contracts voluntarily and non-fraudulently
entered into by two or more parties.
A State Citizen, by obtaining a social security number, is signing a
contract. The terms of a contract can constrain or supersede any of
the rights the Sovereign previously held. And those terms are fully
enforcible by the courts.
The social security contract binds the parties to the laws and
statutes regarding social security.
The social security contract also makes one a US citizen and hence
makes one subject to the 14th amendment and to any other laws that
apply to US citizens. All the Federal laws, income tax laws, social
security laws, etc., constrain one's rights contractually.
3.3. Rights of US citizens vs. Rights of State Citizens
All US citizens are subject to the US Government and have "civil
rights," but have neither "inalienable" rights nor rights guaranteed
by the Constitutions. The rights that US citizens hold are only those
granted to them by the US Government.
Civil rights can be removed or changed at will by legislation. For
example, US citizens were given the right to a trial by jury only in
1968. Previously, US citizens might be given trials by jury but the
guaranteed right to a jury trial did not exist for them. In contrast,
State Citizens have had that right guaranteed by the State and US
Constitutions since their existence.
A State Citizen has absolutely no need of civil rights. A State
Citizen already holds all rights as inalienable.
No challenges regarding constitutionality may be mounted by
aliens/foreigners and US citizens since they did not create the US
constitution---instead they are created constructs of the US
constitution. Sovereign State Citizens can challenge the
constitutionality of laws, codes, or statutes. This is why US citizen
tax-protesters get slam-dunked when they stand before the US Supreme
Court (or the Tax Court for that matter) and claim that the income tax
is unconstitutional. They are wrong twice: they cannot legally even
present the challenge, and the income tax is an excise tax and is
constitutional.
4. Conclusions
Some individuals now claim to be State Citizens by virtue of having
obtained letters from the states in which they are domiciled
acknowledging their Citizenships in those States. Also, to deny
Federal jurisdiction, these Citizens have attempted to break all
contractual ties with the US Government, by returning their Social
Security cards, by submitting IRS W-8 forms and by closing all
financial accounts with members of the Federal Reserve System (credit
cards, bank accounts, loans) etc. In addition, to deny Corporate
State jurisdiction, these Citizens have returned their driver's
licenses, vehicle registrations, and license plates.
These Citizens claim that Federal Statutory laws, statutes, codes,
etc., and the state Corporate constitutions, do not apply to
them---and have never applied to them---and also that none of the
State Statutory laws, statutes, codes, etc., apply to them.
In traffic and tax cases, the state courts are upholding these claims
so far, but not without a huge fight per individual case. Most cases
against State Citizens are eventually dismissed, because the courts
appear not to want more legal precedents set.
and furthermore...
(1) There is an area over which Congress has EXCLUSIVE legislative
power. The Constitution stipulates that this is the seat of government,
10 miles square, of the United States government. And in addition to
that, Congress also has exclusive legislative power over any land SOLD
to it by any State Legislature. Thus, that includes forts, depots, and
any other federally purchased territory (e.g., it may include National
Parks, provided that a State actually SOLD the land to the US
government, and for which there's a deed showing ownership).Over this
territory the Congress can do whatever it wants, above and beyond the
powers given to it elsewhere in Section 8 of the Constitution.
Presumably the only restrictions would be whatever the Supreme Court
would rule as constitutional. The Supreme Court, then, might strike
down a law passed by Congress restricting free speech in the federal
zone, citing the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court would not
strike down the establisment of a Food and Drug Administration, as the
Congress has the power to create that if it wants for the federal zone.
What the Court then does is interprete the "commerce clause" of
Section 8 rather loosely to force the FDA and it's rules on the States
and onto people outside the federal zone. So, that's how Congressional
laws get applied to us -- through the backdoor, and with some sleight
of hand.
(2) Analyze the 14th Amendment. Read what it says in Section 1: "All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and SUBJECT to the
jurisdiction therof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside." (emphasis added by me) Now, before the 14th
Amendment there were no citizens of the United States; otherwise why
have this amendment? So, what were people citizens of? The State in
which they lived. Furthermore, they were Citizens, not subjects! Note
that the 14th Amendment in the emphasis I added, speaks about people
who are SUBJECT to the laws of "the United States." The original
Constitution never said anything about subjects, or people who were
subject to laws.
Also note that it says "citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside." Why say both?
There's ambiguity here. In order to figure it out, you have to know
what's meant by "United States." The "United States" is the name given
to the federal zone over which the Congress has exclusive legislative
power. The "United States" was incorporated in 1802, and included at
the time the newly created District of Columbia, and various federal
forts (e.g., later on Fort Sumpter would be an example of territory of
the "United States."). Various territories were in the federal zone
before they were admitted as States. So, the "United States" started
off small, but now is quite large, encompassing quite a lot of land
within the United States of America as well as beyond.
Some of the western States have most of their land in federal hands.
E.g., Colorado looks like a rectangle on maps. But if you carve out
the federal land the resulting State would be much smaller, convoluted,
with branches of land and disconnected islands surrounded by federal
land. Perhaps less than half of Colorado is State area over which the
State of Colorado has sovereignty.
A person born or naturalized in the "United States," then, is indeed
subject to the laws of the United States. As that federal territory is
not itself actual States. Persons not born or naturalized in the
"United States" are not subject to the laws of the "United States";
only to the laws of the States in which they are Citizens (except, of
course, wherever Section 8 powers apply).
If a State passes a law stipulating the death penalty for committing
murder, that law applies to you if you commit murder. The federal
government has no such power granted it -- except, once again, with
respect to what it can do within the federal zone; and in that zone it
can have laws pertaining to murder. It's laws regarding murder would
not supercede State law for the simple reason that (a) it does not have
that power under Section 8, and (b) is prevented by the 10th Amendment
from assuming that power. (Curiously, State law does not apply to the
federal zone either. Remember, Congress has exclusive lawmaking power
over its own nonstate zone. Thus, if you commit murder while in the
federal zone, the State in which that zone may be located is
irrelevant: The laws of the "United States" apply in that case.)
Again, this distinction, always subtle, has eroded away.
This isn't just speculation. The Supreme Court has ruled that there
are 3 different definitions of "United States." One of those
definitions is the name of the federal zone that we've been talking
about. Since there are three official, but different, definitions of
"United States," it's very hard to know which is being used when. One
has to attend to the context of its usage, and be familiar with Article
1 Section 8 as well as other parts of the Constitution. And even then
it's not easy. And, the schools certainly make no attempt to teach
this fine distinction.
And, what complicates this even more is that the difference between
being a State Citizen or a "United States" citizen makes no difference
if you, as a State Citizen, have entered into various assundry but
invisible contracts with the "United States." You can't just march out
and proclaim your State Citizenship status and say that the laws of the
"United States" don't apply to you. Those laws apply because when you
entered into those contracts you agreed that they applied to you.
E.g., when you signed for a Social Security Number, you entered into a
contract. In exchange for a 9 digit number, which is the benefit you
receive from that contract, you have certain obligations on your end of
the contract. The government lived up to its end by providing you with
your very own, unique number. In exchange you have an obligation to
participate in the Social Security system, which includes those FICA
"taxes."
You have to pay the FICA, because, after all, you entered into that
contract,and further, the government lived up to its end by giving you
that number.Not paying FICA would be breach of contract.
That's also how they get you into being a Subject and render the word
Citizen meaningless.
Spead YEARS studing this for yourself, as I have, Bright boy!
-=Tony=-
In <5arfbt$m...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind?
>>
>> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>
>
>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind?
>>
>> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>
>
>Get the gripe off of your peanut sized stiffy you brain dead idiot.
>READ THE LAWS!
>They only apply to U.S. citizens who are "RESIDENTS" of the federal
>areas. Eat your own defication and expire, you supporter of the
>communist democracy!
>
>B.J.
>
Well, B.J. why are you continuing to send me the propagana of
your "erstwhile lawerly" opinions, privately. A "common law" lawyer
you admit to ...but does not say much for your incivility. Most good
lawyers are very civil persons, in my extended experience with the
legal profession!
Your last presumably gave your full name, assuming it it true.
Would you like me to expose it rather your public anon?
-=Tony=-
In <32D1AF...@concentric.net> "Steve J. Quest"
<Squ...@concentric.net> writes:
>
>-=Tony=- wrote:
>>
>> In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
>> Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>> >
>>
>> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>> sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind?
>>
>> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>> he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>
>
>remind me of Benedict Arnold. :-/ At least there are a few people
>who wish to see America that "land of the free" once again........sq
>
>(as for me, I think I'll leave this country and renounce my
citizenship
>[as if I ever was a federal citizen] and taste sweet freedom in some
>other country. I just have to find the one that suits me best......)
OK, Stevie. One feather for you for being succint. <g> BTW, what
country have you picked?
-=Tony=-
In <5arfo4$i...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>
>In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>writes:
>>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
>>Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>>>
>>
>> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind?
>>
>> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>
>
><1996123009...@india.midtown.net>
<32C820...@concentric.net>
><32C829...@concentric.net> <5a9u6v$9...@news04.deltanet.com>
><32C93B...@concentric.net> <5ah2pl$5e2
>@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
>
anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>writes:
>>
>>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com
>>) writes:
>>>
>>
>> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind?
>>
>> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>
>
>READ THE LAWS!
>They only apply to U.S. citizens who are "RESIDENTS" of the federal
>areas. Eat your own defication and expire, you supporter of the
>communist democracy!
>
>
Amazingly REDUNDANT!
-=Tony=-
In <5aronh$j...@lana.zippo.com> Corona writes:
>
>In article <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, anth...@ix.netcom.com
says...
>>
>>Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>>>
>>
>> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind?
>>
>> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>
>
>-Corona
Ha ha ha. OK, Corona ...I thank also for being succinct. But
Beano? some new hair-raizing and brain boggling, illegal substance?
-=Tony=-
In <19970107025...@ladder01.news.aol.com> mweis...@aol.com
writes:
>
>In article <32D1AF...@concentric.net>, "Steve J. Quest"
><Squ...@concentric.net> writes:
>
>>
>>(as for me, I think I'll leave this country and renounce my
citizenship
>>[as if I ever was a federal citizen] and taste sweet freedom in some
>>other country. I just have to find the one that suits me best......)
>>
>>
>
a
>simpler life there soon.
>
>Bass Pig
>
>http://users.aol.com/amn92/amn.htm
>http://users.aol.com/amn92/radio.htm
Yeah! Especially by a well-found sailboat! The way to enjoy
the world about us and enjoy simpler life.
-=Tony=-
In <5arfdo$m...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>
>In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>writes:
>>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
>>Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>>>
>>
>> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind?
>>
>> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>
>
>>) writes:
>>>
>>
>> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind?
>>
>> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>
>
>READ THE LAWS!
>They only apply to U.S. citizens who are "RESIDENTS" of the federal
>areas. Eat your own defication and expire, you supporter of the
>communist democracy!
>
>
You REPEAT your just prior. WHY? To get more attention, perhaps?
Or just know how to operate your system? <g>
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5arfdo$m...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>
>In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind? Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>
>
>>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com
>>) writes:
>Get the gripe off of your peanut sized stiffy you brain dead idiot.
>the federal areas. Eat your own defication and expire, you supporter
of >the communist democracy!
>
>B.J.
>
"Income", "Person", "Taxpayer", "Shall", and "Must"
Learn to Decipher the Internal Revenue Code and IRS Publications
The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is a masterpiece of
deception designed to mislead Citizens into believing that
individuals are subject to federal income tax. The Code was
written by attorneys for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and
contains a series of directory statutes using the word "shall",
with provisions that are requirements for corporations, but not
for individuals. Even members of Congress are generally unaware
of the deceptive legal meanings of certain terms that are
consistently used in the IRC. These terms have legal
definitions for use in the IRC that are very different from the
general understanding of the meaning of the words.
Lack of knowledge of these legal definitions causes
misunderstanding by uninformed Citizens who are confused as to
the correct interpretation of both the IRC and the true meaning
of the tricky wording in IRS instructional publications and news
articles. However, when you understand the legal definitions of
these terms, the deception is easily recognized and the limited
application of the Code becomes clear. This understanding will
help you to see that filing income tax forms and paying income
taxes must be voluntary acts for most Americans because the
United States Constitution forbids the federal government to
impose any tax directly upon individuals.
"INCOME"
Most people mistakenly believe all moneys they receive, such
as wages, salaries, and tips, are "income". However, for years,
IRS publication #525, entitled "Taxable and Nontaxable Income",
has acknowledged that wages and salaries are NOT "income".
Publication #525 states: "Wages and salaries are the main SOURCE
of income for most people." In the court decision of Graves vs
People of the State of New York ex rel O'Keefe, 59 S.Ct. 595
(1939), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a source of
income is not income, and the source is not subject to income
tax. In that decision, the Court stated: "A tax on income is
not economically or legally a tax on its source." However,
wages, salaries, commissions, and tips (sources) are considered
to be "income" for an individual when he lists them as "income"
on an IRS tax return form. When he signs the tax form under
penalty of perjury, he has made a voluntary oath that his wages,
salary, commissions, and tips listed on the return are "income"
and that he is subject to the tax.
In the still standing decision of Brushaber vs Union Pacific
Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court
ruled that the federal income tax is an excise tax under the
Sixteenth Amendment (the income tax amendment). The Court
explained that THE INCOME TAX CANNOT BE IMPOSED AS A DIRECT TAX
(A TAX ON INDIVIDUALS OR ON PROPERTY) because the United States
Constitution still requires that all direct taxes must be
apportioned among the States. "Apportioned" means that a direct
tax is laid upon the State governments in proportion to each
State's population. The Court ruled that income tax can be
constitutional only as an indirect (excise) tax -- that is, a tax
on profits earned by corporations or privileges granted by
government. In other words, said the Supreme Court, in order for
there to be "income", there MUST be profits or gains received in
the exercise of a privilege granted by government. As an
example, a lawyer is granted the government privilege of being an
officer of the government court when he represents clients in
litigation.
At law, labor is property. In fact, the Supreme Court has
identified labor as man's most precious property. Therefore, the
exchange of one's labor for wages or salary (which are also
property) is considered by law to be an exchange of properties of
equal value in which there is NO gain or profit. Such a property
exchange of equal value cannot be taxed because there is no
profit or gain. Also, one who works in an ordinary occupation is
not a recipient of any privilege granted by government, because
he is merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to
work and earn an living. Courts have repeatedly ruled that no
tax may be placed upon the exercise of rights. Their reasoning
was sensible. If the exercise of rights could be taxed,
government could destroy them by excessive rates of taxation.
Items that the law includes in "income" are described in
Code sections listed under the title of "Items Specifically
Included in Gross Income", which covers Sections 71 through 86.
Nowhere in these sections and nowhere else in the Code is there
any mention of wages, salaries, commissions, or tips as being
"income". For example, to deceive and intimidate waitresses into
declaring their tips to be income is a double fraud. First, tips
are gifts, not wages. According to the IRC, gifts are not
subject to income tax. In fact, even if tips were considered to
be wages, they would still not be "income" and would not be
subject to an income (excise) tax unless one enters them as
"income" on a tax return form.
"PERSON"
People generally consider the term "person" to mean an
individual only. But, IRC Section 7701, entitled "Definitions",
includes a corporation, a trust, an estate, a partnership, an
association, or company as being a "person". All of these legal
entities are "persons" at law, so it is legally correct but very
misleading when the federal income (excise) tax on corporations
is described by the deceptive title of "Personal Income Tax".
This misleading description leads most people to believe that it
means a tax on individuals.
The legal term "person" has an even more restricted
definition when used in IRC Chapter 75, which contains all the
criminal penalties in the Code. In Section 7343 of that Chapter,
a "person" subject to criminal penalties is defined as:
... [A]n officer or employee of a corporation, or a member
or employee of a partnership, who, as such officer, employee
or member, is under a duty to perform the act in respect of
which the violation occurs.
An individual who is not in such a capacity is not defined as a
"person" subject to criminal penalties. Unprivileged
individuals, who do not impose the income (excise) tax upon
themselves by filing returns, are not subject to the tax and they
are not "persons" who can lawfully be subjected to criminal
charges for not filing a return or not paying income tax.
Sections of the Code relating to the requirements for filing
returns, keeping records, and disclosing information state that
those sections apply to "every person liable" or "any person made
liable". These descriptions mean "any person who is liable for
the tax". They do not state or mean that all persons are liable.
The only persons liable are those "persons" (legal entities such
as corporations) who owe an income (excise) tax, and are
therefore subject to the requirements of the IRC. If you
substitute the word "corporation" for the term "person" (a
corporation is a person at law) when reading the Code or other
articles and publications relating to income tax, the true
meaning of the Code becomes more apparent.
A TAX PAYER IS NOT A "TAXPAYER"
The deceptive term "taxpayer" is a legal term created by
combining the words "tax" and "payer". The general understanding
of the term's meaning is different from its legal definition in
the IRC. Section 7701(a)(14) gives the legal definition of the
term "taxpayer" in relation to income tax. It states: "The term
'taxpayer' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax."
(All internal revenue taxes are excise taxes.) Note that the
section does not say that all persons are "taxpayers" subject to
internal revenue tax. Corporations are "taxpayers", for they are
"persons" subject to an internal revenue (excise) tax.
The term "taxpayer" is used extensively throughout the IRC,
in IRS publications, news articles, and instructional literature
as a verbal trap to make uninformed Citizens believe that all
individuals are subject to federal income tax and to the
requirements of the IRC. These materials state that "taxpayers"
are required to file returns, keep records, supply information,
etc. Such statements are technically correct, because
"taxpayers" are those legal "persons" previously described that
are subject to an excise tax, but unprivileged individuals are
not "taxpayers" within the meaning of the IRC.
The confusion about the meaning of the term leads most
people to mistakenly assume that they are "taxpayers" because
they pay other taxes such as sales taxes and real estate taxes.
Those people are tax payers, not "taxpayers" as defined in the
IRC. When they read articles and publications related to income
tax, describing the legal requirements for "taxpayers", they
erroneously believe that the term applies to them as individuals.
It is very important to understand that the IRC requirements
apply to IRC-defined "taxpayers" only, and not to unprivileged
individuals. Corporations and other government-privileged legal
entities are "taxpayers under the Internal Revenue Code";
unprivileged individuals are not, unless they voluntarily file
income tax returns showing they owe taxes, thus legally placing
themselves in the classification of "taxpayers". Because of its
legal definition, the term "taxpayer" should never be used in
relation to income tax, except to describe those legal entities
subject to a federal excise tax.
"SHALL" means "MAY"
In general use, the word "shall" is a word of command with a
mandatory meaning. In the IRC, "shall" is a directory word that
has a mandatory meaning when applied to corporations. The IRC
contains a series of directory statutes using the word "shall" in
describing the actions called for in those sections of the law.
The provisions of these directory statutes are requirements for
corporations, because corporations are created by government and,
consequently, are subject to government direction and control.
Since corporations are granted the privilege to exist and operate
by government-issued charters, they do not have the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals. This
government-granted privilege legally obligates corporations to
make a "return" of profits and gains earned in the exercise of
their privileged operations when directed to do so by law. This
is why the tax form is called a "return".
However, directory words in the Code merely imply that
individuals are required to perform certain acts, but directory
words are not requirements for individuals when a mandatory
interpretation of the directory words would conflict with the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals. Courts have
repeatedly ruled that in statutes, when a mandatory meaning of
the word "shall" would create a constitutional conflict, "shall"
must be defined as meaning "may". The following are quotes from
a few of these decisions. In the decision of Cairo & Fulton R.R.
Co. vs Hecht, 95 U.S. 170, the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
As against the government the word "shall" when used in
statutes, is to be construed as "may," unless a contrary
intention is manifest.
In the decision of George Williams College vs Village of Williams
Bay, 7 N.W.2d 891, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated:
"Shall" in a statute may be construed to mean "may" in order
to avoid constitutional doubt.
In the decision of Gow vs Consolidated Coppermines Corp., 165
Atlantic 136, the court stated:
If necessary to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute,
"shall" will be deemed equivalent to "may" ....
Sections 6001 and 6011 of the IRC are cited in the Privacy
Act notice in the IRS 1040 instruction booklet in order to lead
individuals to believe they are required to perform services for
tax collectors. Note the use of the word "shall" in the
following sections of the Code:
Section 6001 states:
Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or
for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render
such statements, make such returns, and comply with such
rules and requirements as the Secretary may from time to
time prescribe.
Section 6011 states:
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any
person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or
for the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement
according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the
Secretary.
Note that Sections 6001 and 6011 apply to "every person
liable" and "any person made liable", but not to "individuals".
However, THERE IS NO SECTION IN THE IRC THAT MAKES INDIVIDUALS
LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX because any law imposing a
federal tax on individuals would be unconstitutional, for it
would violate the taxing limitations in the U.S. Constitution
which prohibit direct taxation of individuals by the federal
government. People are often confused when reading the Code
because, under Subtitle A, Chapter 1, which covers income taxes,
Part 1 of Subchapter A has the misleading title of "Tax on
Individuals". The title is misleading because Part 1 imposes the
tax on "income", but contains no requirement for individuals to
pay it. But an individual becomes a "person liable" for the tax
when he files an income tax form, thereby swearing that he is
liable for (owes) the tax.
The Privacy Act notice in the instruction booklet for IRS
Form 1040 also shows that disclosure of information by
individuals is not required. The notice states:
Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue
Code sections 6001 and 6011 and their regulations.
The IRS does not say that those sections require individuals to
submit the information; those sections only give the IRS the
authority to ask for it.
Section 6012 states:
Returns with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A shall
be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having
for the taxable year gross which equals or exceeds the
exemption amount ...."
Subsections (2) through (6) list corporations, estates, trusts,
partnerships, and certain political organizations as also being
subject to this section.
Any requirements compelling unprivileged individuals to keep
records, make returns and statements, or to involuntarily perform
any other services for tax collectors, would be violations of
constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
forbids compelling individuals to perform services involuntarily.
The Amendment states:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as
punishment for crimes whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
place subject to their jurisdiction.
The Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United
States Constitution states that the people's right to privacy of
their papers shall not be violated by government. To compel
individuals to disclose information taken from their papers would
violate this right.
The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects the right
of individuals not to be required to be witnesses against
themselves. To compel individuals to disclose information by
submitting statements or information on a tax return form, all of
which could be used against them in criminal prosecutions, would
violate their Fifth Amendment right.
These examples show some constitutional conflicts that would
result from defining the word "shall" as meaning "is required
to". Thus, "shall" in the above mentioned statutes must be
interpreted as meaning "may". Consequently, for individuals,
keeping records, making statements, and making returns are
clearly voluntary actions that are not required by law.
"HAVING" INCOME
According to the wording of Section 6012 previously
discussed, it is a directory statute which pertains to the filing
of income tax returns, and applies only to those individuals
"having income". Since the word "having" has no deceptive legal
definition in the Code, its legal meaning is the same as its
customary meaning in general use. Although dictionaries define
the word "have" as meaning "possess" or "hold in one's
possession", the IRS fraudulently misinterprets "having income"
as meaning "receiving gross receipts" when applying Section 6012
to individuals.
To better understand the meaning of "having income",
consider this example: If during one year a corporation receives
ten million dollars (gross receipts) from the sales of its
products, and has expense items of nine million dollars, the
corporation has a profit (income) of one million dollars. When
tax liabilities are determined at the end of the year, the
corporation has (possesses) an increase in its assets (a gain) of
one million dollars. But, if the corporation's expenses equalled
its gross receipts, it would then have (possess) no profit or
gain (income) and it would owe no income tax.
Now, consider another example: If during one year an
individual receives fifteen thousand dollars in wages (gross
receipts) from the sale of his labor, and has expenses of fifteen
thousand dollars to sustain himself and his family, he then has
(possesses) no increase in assets. Although he has (possesses)
nothing more than he had at the beginning of the year, IRS agents
consider him as "having income" of fifteen thousand dollars. IRS
agents ignore the fact that his wages were not income according
to their own publications!
"MUST" means "MAY"
Most people have never studied the IRC and their
understanding of the law is generally based on hearsay, newspaper
articles and IRS instructional materials. These instructions
make frequent use of the deceptive word "must" in describing the
things that the IRS wants you to do, because "must" is a forceful
word that people mistakenly believe to mean "are required". Very
few people realize that "must" is a directory word similar to
"shall" and that, in IRS instructions to the public, it means
"may", the same as the word "shall".
In the legal definition of the word "must" in Black's Law
Dictionary, it states:
... [I]t is often used in a merely directory sense, and
consequently is a synonym for the word "may" not only in the
permissive sense of that word, but also in the mandatory
sense which it sometimes has.
Because of the constitutional conflicts explained earlier in
this article, the word "must", similar to the word "shall",
cannot have a mandatory meaning for individuals. It therefore
means "may" when used in IRS instruction publications.
The IRS instructions for Form 1040 state that you "must"
file a return if you have certain amounts of income. IRS
withholding instructions state that employers "must" withhold
money from paychecks for income tax, "must" withhold social
security tax (an income tax also), and "must" send to the IRS any
W-4 withholding statement claiming exemption from withholding, if
the wages are expected to usually exceed $200 per week. An
understanding of the legal meaning of the word "must" exposes the
deception by the IRS and makes it clear that the actions called
for are voluntary actions for individuals that are not required
by law. If these actions were required by law, the instructions
would not use the word "must", but would say that the actions
were "required".
FREE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS
Prior to the American Revolution, the American colonists
were subjects of the English Kings and were subject to their
orders and edicts. But, according to the Declaration of
Independence and the United States Constitution, the Citizens of
our country are free sovereign individuals. They are not
subjects of government, nor are they subject to mandatory
direction or control by the federal government. Except for
duties such as military draft and jury duty, the federal
government has no authority to require unprivileged individuals
to perform services for government.
There is no section in the IRC requiring individuals to pay
income tax or file income tax returns, because the federal
government has no constitutional authority to impose any tax
directly upon individuals or to require them involuntarily to
keep records, make statements, make returns, or perform any acts
for the convenience of federal tax collectors. But, if an
individual files a return, his voluntary action of signing the
form, thereby swearing under penalty of perjury that he owes the
tax, is an acknowledgement under oath that he is subject to the
tax (a "taxpayer") and is therefore subject to the directory
statutes of the IRC.
The reader should remember the legal definitions of the
various terms and the information about the rights of Citizens
presented in this article whenever he reads the IRC and other
materials relating to income tax in order to better understand
the correct meaning of whatever they read.
_______________________________
INFORM PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHTS.
SHOW THIS TO YOUR FRIENDS!
REPRINT THIS ARTICLE AND DISTRIBUTE IT.
YOU MAY PRINT YOUR GROUP'S NAME
AND MESSAGE BELOW.
To obtain additional information,
send a large self-addressed stamped envelope to:
FREE STATE CONSTITUTIONISTS
c/o Post Office Box 3281
Baltimore, Maryland
Postal Code 21228/TDC
... History teaches us that we do not learn from history.
mweis...@aol.com
BRIAN MOCERI
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5at13m$s...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
who blows his words out his rectum writes:
>>> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
>mind? Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never
signed), he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>>writes:
>>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
>mind?
>>> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>>>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>Get the gripe off of your peanut sized stiffy you brain dead idiot.
>>READ THE LAWS!
>>They only apply to U.S. citizens who are "RESIDENTS" of the federal
>>areas. Eat your own defication and expire, you supporter of the
>>communist democracy!
>>
>>
>
> Amazingly REDUNDANT!
In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com( Citizen
Burton James ) writes:
At least I do my research before I open my mouth and prove myself a
fool. Too bad you can't do likewise!
Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 The laws of Congress in respect to those
matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but
have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government,
(1933) U.S. v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137, 151 The criminal jurisdiction of
the United States is wholly statutory.
Cheek v. U.S., 111 .Ct. 604, 610-611 If a defendant has a subjective
belief, however irrational or unreasonable, that he was not required to
file a tax return, the government cannot establish that he acted
willfully.
McColloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 415 That the power to tax involves the
power to destroy.
U.S. v. Bevans 16 U.S. 336 The exclusive jurisdiction which the United
States have in forts and dock yards ceded to them, is derived from the
express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could
be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the
state would be supreme and exclusive therein.
Meyer v Herera, 41 Fed. Cases 65 Where the citizenship of the parties
appears in the petition, defect of jurisdiction on that ground may be
made by demurrer, in the absense of a general appearence.
(1954) Stanard v. Olesen 74 Ct 768 No sanction can be imposed absent
proof of jurisdiction.
Cairo & Fulton R.R. v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 170 As against the government,
the word shall when used in statutes, is to be construed as may, unless
contrary intention is manifest.
Collector v. Day 11 Wall. 113; 78 U.S. 122 . In respect to the reserve
powers of the State is as sovereign and independent as the General
Government.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 It is the duty of the courts to be watchful
for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy
encroachment thereon.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 The compulsory extortion of a mans own
testimony, or his private papers, to connect him with a crime or a
forfeiture of his goods, is illegal, is compelling him to be a witness
against himself, within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution and is equivalent of search and seizure within the Fourth
Amendment.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616, 635 It may be that it is the obnoxious
thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and
unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely,
by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of
procedures.
(1890) Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240 The criminal
jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is wholly derived from
the statutes of the United States. (not USA or uSA).
(1895) Pollack v. Farmer Loan & Trust 157 U.S. 572 If the question had
related to an income tax, the reference would have been fatal, as such
taxes have been always classed by the law of Great Britain as direct
taxes,
(1895) Pollack v. Farmer Us Loan & Trust 157 U.S. 582 Nothing can be
clearer than that what the constitution intended to guard against was
the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing
persons and property within any state through a majority made up from
the other states,
(1895) Pollack v. Farmer us Loan & Trust 157 U.S. 588 Direct taxes, in
a general and large sense, may be described as taxes derived
immediately from the person, or from real or personal property, without
any recourse therefrom to other sources for reimbursement,
(1895) Pollack v. Farmer us Loan & Trust 158 U.S. 624 .. the tax
imposed ...being a direct tax ... is unconstitutional and void because
[it was] not apportioned.
(1904) Spreckels Sugar Refining Company v. McClain 192 U.S. 397 page
416 the well-settled rule that the Citizen is exempt from taxation
unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that
where the construction of a tax is doubtful, the doubt is to be
resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.... I
do not think that the income derived from such investment of funds is
in any proper sense receipts in the business of sugar refining, (last
part proves interest is not taxable)
(1909) American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 at 356 All
legislation is prima facie territorial.
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 ..taxes laid upon the
manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country,
upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate
privileges.
Montello Salt Company v. Utah, 221 U.S. 452, 31 S. Ct. 706 (1911) held
that the word including means to confine within.
(1917) Gould v. Gould 245 U.S. 151 at 153 In the interpretation of
statutes levying taxes it is established rule not to extend their
provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language
used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not
specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
strongly against the government, and in favor of the Citizen, (case
proved alimony was not taxable income)
(1914) Stanton v. Baltic Mining 240 U.S. 103 The Sixteenth Amendment
created no new taxing authority.
(1925) New York Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29 at 31
Legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to limits over
which the law making power has jurisdiction.
Pitt man v. Home Owhers Loan, 308 U.S. 21 A sovereign is not subject to
taxation.
(1947) Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 at 384 It
is your responsibility to determine whether the government agency was
within bounds of their authority.
(1947) Bute v. Illinois 333 U.S. 640 (at page 656) confirms IRS Laws do
not apply to all people in the United States of America.
(1949) U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 A .. canon of construction
which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent
appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.
(1960) Flora v. U.S. 362 U.S. 179 .. Our system of taxation is based
upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint .
(1970) Brady v. U.S. 397 U.S. 742 (page 748) Waivers of Constitutional
Rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowingly intelligent
acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and
consequences.
Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, and Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 If
one is unable to PAY, it is not a crime, in our United States Of
America.
(1972) Papachritoy v. City of Jacksonville 405 U.S. 156 said a law is
void for vagueness because it fails to give people of ordinary
intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden.
(1972) Lynch v. Household Finance Corp 405 U.S. 538 Property does not
rights, people have rights. The right to enjoy property without
unlawful deprivation. No less than the right to speak, or the right to
travel, is in truth a personal right, whether the property in question
be a welfare check, a home or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental
interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the
personal right to property. Neither could have meaning without the
other. PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS protected by the Civil
Rights Act. File with FBI, criminal act, 10 yrs.
(1973) U.S. v. Mason, Administrator, et al, 412 U.S. 391 at 399-400 The
Supreme Court says you should not be punished or penalized for relying
on Supreme Court decisions.
(1974) Hagans v. Lavine 415 U.S. 528 (pg 533) Where jurisdiction is
challenged, it must be proven.
(1975) Colonial Pipeline v. Triagle, 421 U.S. 100 However, all income
tax statutes apply only to state created creatures known as
corporations no matter whether state, local, or federal.
(1979) Burkes v. Laskar 441 U.S. 471 When jurisdiction is not squarely
challenged, the subject matter is presumed to exist.
(1972) Economy Heating v. U.S. 470 F2nd 585 The revenue laws are code
or system in regulation of tax assessments and collection. They relate
to taxpayers, and to non taxpayers. The latter are without their
scope. No procedure is prescribed for non taxpayers, and no attempt is
made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.
With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the
subject nor the object of the revenue laws.
Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 486,489 The claim and exercise of a right
cannot be converted into a crime.
(1986) U.S. v. Jersey Shore State Bank, 781 F.2d 974 Section 6303(a)
not only requires the government to give notice to each "person" liable
for the amount of tax it also requires notice of a particular kind:
i.e. one stating the amount and demanding payment thereof.
"When extraordinary power and extraordinary pay are allotted
to any individual in a government, he becomes the center round
which every kind of corruption generates and forms." -- Thomas Paine
"There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the
people by the gradual and silent encroachment of theose in power, than
by violent and sudden usurpation." -- James Madison
"A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more
docile instruments in its hands, even for beneficial purposes,
will find that with small men, no great thing can really be
accomplished." - John Stuart Mill
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
-- Marbury vs. Madison - 5 US (1803)
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes
no duties; affords no protection; it creates o office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." --
Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it." -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others. -- Thomas Jefferson
"... The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights
as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business
in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes
no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation... He
owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom,
beyond protection of his life and property. His rights are
such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the
organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by
due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution...
He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass
upon their rights." --HALE v. HENKEL, 210 U.S. at 74 (1905)
"The income tax is unconstitutional and was not part of the original
intent of those who drafted our Constitution or government. I am
supporting a resolution to repeal the 16th Amendment".
ł -Steve Symms, former member of the U.S. Congress.
"Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to
produce his records to IRS agents. Who would believe the ironic truth
that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who
relies upon his Constitutional Rights".
-Supreme Court opinion in U.S. vs. Dickerson,413 F.2d.,1111:
"Strictly speaking, it probably is not necessary for the federal govt
to tax anyone directly; it could simply print the money it needs.
However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious
to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running.
The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering
the milk: too much water and the people catch on".
-Ron Paul, former member of the U.S. Congress.
"Any man who has the brains to think and the nerve to act for the
benefit of the people of the country is considered a radical by those
who are content with stagnation and willing to endure disaster."
-William Randolph Herst (1863-1951) American newspaper publisher
"The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the
articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be
ł79 71 identified."-HOLMES, J.,Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917)
244 71US 205,61 LEd 1086, 1101, 37 S Ct 524
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 20 years before the Bill of Rights
"The only protection of every Citizen from such deprivation of rights
is a strict adherence to the Bill of Rights by everyone for everyone.
This should be self-evident but the danger of erosion of rights stems
largely from the fact that so many citizens of the majority, who have
never been deprived of any of these rights, find is difficult to
understand what the deprivation of them means in the lives of others."
-Earl Warren, "A Republic, If You Can Keep It", p. 48 (not a
"Democracy")
"An investment in knowlege pays the best interest"
- Benjamin Franklin
"Governments need armies to protect them against their enslaved
and opposed subjects." -Leo Tolstoy (1893)
The people of the state, as the successors of its former soverereign,
are entitled to all the rights that formerly belonged to the king by
his own prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 21 Dall. (21 U.S.) 89 (1829)
mweis...@aol.com
In article <5asdm1$8...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>Some individuals now claim to be State Citizens by virtue of having
>obtained letters from the states in which they are domiciled
>acknowledging their Citizenships in those States. Also, to deny
>Federal jurisdiction, these Citizens have attempted to break all
>contractual ties with the US Government, by returning their Social
>Security cards, by submitting IRS W-8 forms and by closing all
>financial accounts with members of the Federal Reserve System (credit
>cards, bank accounts, loans) etc. In addition, to deny Corporate
>State jurisdiction, these Citizens have returned their driver's
>licenses, vehicle registrations, and license plates.
In reading all of this, and in being familiar with the concept of
"sovereign citizenship" for a number of years, I have still not figured
out how one can function and do trade and commerce in a society without
bank accounts, driver's licenses, credit cards, etc.
Would you provide some insight into how sovereign citizens live and work
and earn and spend in this society?
Near the end of your treatise, you make note of contractual obligations
incurred when a state Citizen signs a Social Security contract. Does not
that contract become invalid by virtue of the fact that the signing party
does not understand the implications behind it on the basis of trickery? I
once read somewhere that any law that is too complex for the citizen to
understand, should be banished. One of our forefathers said that. I can
hardly imagine a contract being legally binding when forced to sign under
coersion, or by vice of false education.
All you other points are well-stated. You cleared up a lot of confusion
about the rights of the People by clarifying the Status issue.
Best regards,
Bass Pig
mweis...@aol.com
I have just one more question to pose before the world:
"Who will protect us from our 'protectors'? "
Steve J. Quest
Iris Heather Hoggatt wrote:
>
> 1.1. Classes of Citizenship
>
> There are two distinct and separate classes of citizenship: 1) State
> Citizenship, which has existed since before and after the Union was
> formed; and 2) US citizenship, which has existed only since the 14th
> Amendment (which actually created the class of US citizenship).
>
> By Common Law birthright everyone who is born in a State is a
> Sovereign Citizen of the State in which they were born.
Let's get one thing straight. The Civil War was not a war about
slavery, it was about the Federalists (the ones who wanted a FEDERAL
government, which we now have unfortunately) and the Confederates,
con = against, federalism.
As we all know, the Confederates lost, therefore we are all
property of the winner, we are all prisoners of war, and forced to
bend to the will of our masters. I'm sorry, but that's what happens
when you are a victim of a war, and we are all victims of the Civil
war, a war where the ENEMY won!
So instead of arguing old laws that don't mean anything to the
people in power (old confederate and pre-federalism documents, like the
constitution and the bill of rights) get organized, form a militia, and
get ready to go to bloody civil war. About 11 years ago, I predicted
that this country would enter into a second Civil War, what I refered
to as Civil War II. It will happen folks, sooner or later, it will
happen. Most of the fighting will NOT be by the submissive "sheeple",
but will be performed by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, who came here to find
freedom, but alas, they were more free under a dictatorship! THEY will
help to free this land, and I will be standing by their side.........sq
(do you copy this message, you federal government GREPS! Grep this
keyphrase, REVOLUTION, speak the word, the word is all of us, speak
the word, the word is REVOLUTION! Now SPEAK!)
Jacob Conner
On 7 Jan 1997, -=Tony=- wrote:
> In <5arfbt$m...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
> Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
> >
> >In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
> anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
> >writes:
> >>
> >>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com
> >>) writes:
> >>>
> >>
> >> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
> >>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
> mind?
> >>
> >> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
> >>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
> >>
> >> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
> >>
> >
> >>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com
> >>) writes:
> >>>
> >>
> >> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
> >>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
> mind?
> >>
> >> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
> >>he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
> >>
> >> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
> >>
> >
> >Get the gripe off of your peanut sized stiffy you brain dead idiot.
> >READ THE LAWS!
> >They only apply to U.S. citizens who are "RESIDENTS" of the federal
> >areas. Eat your own defication and expire, you supporter of the
> >communist democracy!
> >
> >B.J.
> >
>
> Well, B.J. why are you continuing to send me the propagana of
> your "erstwhile lawerly" opinions, privately. A "common law" lawyer
> you admit to ...but does not say much for your incivility. Most good
> lawyers are very civil persons, in my extended experience with the
> legal profession!
Most "civil" acting or otherwise lawyers are like the mucus
secretions from the common slug.
its obvious that this is a working man fighting for my, his, and
your rights you bafoon.
you give up your freedom and rights to hold oppenions then you
should have never been able to hold that oppenion in the first place.
>
> Your last presumably gave your full name, assuming it it true.
> Would you like me to expose it rather your public anon?
i dont think i would do that if i were you. i have a friend named guido
that likes people who fight for his rights.
Steve J. Quest
-=Tony=- wrote:
>
> OK, Stevie. One feather for you for being succint. <g> BTW, what
> country have you picked?
I haven't decided yet. Some countries have some features I like,
while others have distictly other features which I like (aforementioned
meaning POLITICAL and LEGAL features which I like). However, some have
language problems, in that I speak English and French, and since France
is more totalitarian than the USA, it's out, and French Canada isn't
a whole lot better, so I'm looking for an English speaking country.
It may end up being the Netherlands. The parent company to a
company I am engineering group leader for (by proxy) is headquartered
in The Netherlands. They speak English and Dutch there, but all the
people in the company speak English, which is a plus. There is a good
chance I could find work with them in their country. They have very
liberal drug and vice laws, which I like, but are a socialist country,
which I don't like. I guess I'll just have to take the best that I
can find, the one that offers the most to gain..................sq
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <19970107204...@ladder01.news.aol.com> mweis...@aol.com
writes:
>
>In article <5asdm1$8...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
lab...@ix.netcom.com(Citizen Burton James, Sui-Juris) writes:
>
>>Some individuals now claim to be State Citizens by virtue of having
>>obtained letters from the states in which they are domiciled
>>acknowledging their Citizenships in those States. Also, to deny
>>Federal jurisdiction, these Citizens have attempted to break all
>>contractual ties with the US Government, by returning their Social
>>Security cards, by submitting IRS W-8 forms and by closing all
>>financial accounts with members of the Federal Reserve System (credit
>>cards, bank accounts, loans) etc. In addition, to deny Corporate
>>State jurisdiction, these Citizens have returned their driver's
>>licenses, vehicle registrations, and license plates.
>
>"sovereign citizenship" for a number of years, I have still not
figured
>out how one can function and do trade and commerce in a society
without
>bank accounts, driver's licenses, credit cards, etc.
If one uses the reservation of rights per U.C.C. 1-207 "Without
Prejudice" in all contractual situations, then one's rights are
preserved. Whenever I am unfortunate enough to be forced in accepting
any federal reserve notes or checks, I immediately stamp them over the
seals with the reservation. As far as bank accounts go, I bank offshore
in Jamaica, and recieve higher interest rates for my reward. All the
higher courts have stated (and it's in the public record) that the
(C)itizen has the right to travel, while the U.S. (c)itizen may ask for
permission to drive. If one is a (C)itizen, then that (C)itizen doesn't
need the contract of the drivers license, unless that (C)itizen is
engaged in transportation for hire. It has worked well for several of
the (C)itizens here. In a number of States, such as Colorado and
Minnesota, the statutes clearly point out the differences of whom is
required to register for permission to drive, and who isn't. If I knew
where you were, I may be able to find out more specifics for ya.
(e-mail me at nlnr1...@juno.com). As far as credit cards go, they
can be issued from a foreign trust, such as mine.
>Would you provide some insight into how sovereign citizens live and
work
>and earn and spend in this society?
>
>
My station is the majority of my work, now especially since the courts
in this area have been leaving us alone. The majority of those state
(C)itizens that I know, are in Free Enterprise, which is not the same
as the Capitalist system of enterprise. We use silver and gold eagles,
which are still being minted by the Treasury Dept.
>Near the end of your treatise, you make note of contractual
>obligations
>incurred when a state Citizen signs a Social Security contract. Does
>not that contract become invalid by virtue of the fact that the
signing >party does not understand the implications behind it on the
basis of >trickery?
Thats true, if one doesn't understand the contractual nexus of any
contract, then that contract is void on its face and invalid. (kinda
like Tony) hehehehe. However, if any (C)itizen feels the need, for some
insane reason, to enter into a socialist security contract then he/she
may stamp the SS-5 application with "U.C.C 1-207 Without Prejudice",
although why would anyone want anything to do whith that garbage is
beyond me.
>I once read somewhere that any law that is too complex for the citizen
>to understand, should be banished.
Actually it's a law. And the majority of "statutory regulation", unless
the interpretations can be found in Andersons, is beyond the average
understanding of the average man. (and well waaayyyy beyond Tony's
scope of comprehension).. YA!!!!
> One of our forefathers said that. I can
>hardly imagine a contract being legally binding when forced to sign
>under coersion, or by vice of false education.
>
>All you other points are well-stated. You cleared up a lot of
confusion
>about the rights of the People by clarifying the Status issue.
Also.. One point to ponder... The system is based on falsehoods. Unless
one is specifically named by his/her "Christian" name in any suit, then
he/she is not the one named in the suit. That fact has gotten a good
bunch of (C)itizens out from under the heals of the tyrants.
>Best regards,
U-2
>Bass Pig
Hope you enjoyed. REALLY hope it pissed off Tony.
Radio Man
In article <32D344...@concentric.net>, "Steve J. Quest"
<Squ...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Iris Heather Hoggatt wrote:
> >
> > 1.1. Classes of Citizenship
> >
> > There are two distinct and separate classes of citizenship: 1) State
> > Citizenship, which has existed since before and after the Union was
> > formed; and 2) US citizenship, which has existed only since the 14th
> > Amendment (which actually created the class of US citizenship).
> >
> > By Common Law birthright everyone who is born in a State is a
> > Sovereign Citizen of the State in which they were born.
>
> Let's get one thing straight. The Civil War was not a war about
> slavery, it was about the Federalists (the ones who wanted a FEDERAL
> government, which we now have unfortunately) and the Confederates,
> con = against, federalism.
Basically, the North was a federal govt, and the South was not (at least
not during the war, it's possible that if they had won they would have
become one eventually).
>
> As we all know, the Confederates lost, therefore we are all
> property of the winner, we are all prisoners of war, and forced to
> bend to the will of our masters. I'm sorry, but that's what happens
> when you are a victim of a war, and we are all victims of the Civil
> war, a war where the ENEMY won!
Most of the fighting on the North's side was done by immigrants supplied
by companies newly formed to supply the demand. They couldn't even get
their own people to fight!
>
> So instead of arguing old laws that don't mean anything to the
> people in power (old confederate and pre-federalism documents, like the
> constitution and the bill of rights) get organized, form a militia, and
> get ready to go to bloody civil war. About 11 years ago, I predicted
> that this country would enter into a second Civil War, what I refered
> to as Civil War II. It will happen folks, sooner or later, it will
> happen. Most of the fighting will NOT be by the submissive "sheeple",
> but will be performed by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, who came here to find
> freedom, but alas, they were more free under a dictatorship! THEY will
> help to free this land, and I will be standing by their side.........sq
Actually, the Constitution/Bill of Rights are FEDERALIST documents! During
the constitutional debate, the federalists more or less won, and got their
central govt. (Remember that George Washington and John Adams were both of
the Federalist party.) The federalists only managed to ram the
Constitution through by promising the states a bill of rights to be added
on. There was never any intention of making these ACTUAL rights, and the
federalists understood that the new central govt would be able to abrogate
these rights as it saw fit. The first denial of these supposedly
*inalienable* rights came when John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition
Acts of 1798, which permitted the central govt to arrest and jail any
newspaper owners that disagreed with it. So basically we've ALWAYS had a
federalist govt, and NEVER have had these *inalienable* rights!
>
> (do you copy this message, you federal government GREPS! Grep this
> keyphrase, REVOLUTION, speak the word, the word is all of us, speak
> the word, the word is REVOLUTION! Now SPEAK!)
REVOLUTION REVOLT OVERTHROW OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FREEDOM PEOPLE FIRST
That should keep them busy for a while. :)
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <32D344...@concentric.net> "Steve J. Quest"
<Squ...@concentric.net> writes:
>Iris Heather Hoggatt wrote:
>>
>> 1.1. Classes of Citizenship
>>
>> There are two distinct and separate classes of citizenship: 1) State
>> Citizenship, which has existed since before and after the Union was
>> formed; and 2) US citizenship, which has existed only since the 14th
>> Amendment (which actually created the class of US citizenship).
>>
>> By Common Law birthright everyone who is born in a State is a
>> Sovereign Citizen of the State in which they were born.
>
>slavery, it was about the Federalists (the ones who wanted a FEDERAL
>government, which we now have unfortunately) and the Confederates,
>con = against, federalism.
>
>property of the winner, we are all prisoners of war, and forced to
>bend to the will of our masters. I'm sorry, but that's what happens
>when you are a victim of a war, and we are all victims of the Civil
>war, a war where the ENEMY won!
>
>people in power (old confederate and pre-federalism documents, like
the
>constitution and the bill of rights) get organized, form a militia,
and
>get ready to go to bloody civil war. About 11 years ago, I predicted
>that this country would enter into a second Civil War, what I refered
>to as Civil War II. It will happen folks, sooner or later, it will
>happen. Most of the fighting will NOT be by the submissive "sheeple",
>but will be performed by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, who came here to find
>freedom, but alas, they were more free under a dictatorship! THEY
will
>help to free this land, and I will be standing by their
side.........sq
>
>keyphrase, REVOLUTION, speak the word, the word is all of us, speak
>the word, the word is REVOLUTION! Now SPEAK!)
Get Down, Brother!
I tried to keep it as short as possible. If I had expounded further on
the subject of the Civil war 1, it probably would have consumed several
hours, and excesive bandwidth.
Oh well...
B.J.
-=Tony=-
In <5ase1h$5...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
This item already received privately from either Iris Heather
Hoggatt or B.J., the claimed "common law" lawyer who prefers to be
publicly anonymous. Why to me, I dunno.
It's just more wild-assed, wild-eyed propaganda. All too common on
the Internet.
I did read an interesting article today: Internet, the new global
village of village idiots. Sorta fits, eh wot?
-=Tony=-
ps: the entirety repeated out of courtesy to whomever wrote the item
and carefully right-justified all lines "for public comsumption". :-)
It's still ALL propaganda of the first order.
mweis...@aol.com
In article <5aurps$m...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>>In reading all of this, and in being familiar with the concept of
>>"sovereign citizenship" for a number of years, I have still not
>figured
>>out how one can function and do trade and commerce in a society
>without
>>bank accounts, driver's licenses, credit cards, etc.
>
>If one uses the reservation of rights per U.C.C. 1-207 "Without
>Prejudice" in all contractual situations, then one's rights are
>preserved. Whenever I am unfortunate enough to be forced in accepting
>any federal reserve notes or checks, I immediately stamp them over the
>seals with the reservation. As far as bank accounts go, I bank offshore
>in Jamaica, and recieve higher interest rates for my reward. All the
>higher courts have stated (and it's in the public record) that the
>(C)itizen has the right to travel, while the U.S. (c)itizen may ask for
>permission to drive. If one is a (C)itizen, then that (C)itizen doesn't
>need the contract of the drivers license, unless that (C)itizen is
>engaged in transportation for hire. It has worked well for several of
>the (C)itizens here. In a number of States, such as Colorado and
>Minnesota, the statutes clearly point out the differences of whom is
>required to register for permission to drive, and who isn't. If I knew
>where you were, I may be able to find out more specifics for ya.
>(e-mail me at nlnr1...@juno.com). As far as credit cards go, they
>can be issued from a foreign trust, such as mine.
I looked up U.C.C. 1-207 on the Internet, but found a number of sites
mentioning it, but not the statute or code itself. I'd like to read a copy
of it. Presently, it is nearly impossible for me to find work, and I would
imagine that the filter of having to deal with these special requirements
as a sovereign Citizen would further limit the number of potential
empoyers who'd want to bother hiring me. Most businesses are afraid of
"rocking the boat" and placing themselves in jeopardy for hiring anyone
who's contractual agreement is contraversial. How do you work around that?
What kinds of jobs (other than migratory day labor) are available.
If you drive on the road without a license and registration, sooner or
later, the police will pull you over. What do you tell them? How do you
avoid arrest?
What about liability? You're on a public highway and you MUST show
financial responsibility in the event the 3,000lb killing machine we call
a car goes out of control and injures another party. How does one remain
accountable without a licence and registration?
>>Would you provide some insight into how sovereign citizens live and
>work
>>and earn and spend in this society?
>>
>>
>
>My station is the majority of my work, now especially since the courts
>in this area have been leaving us alone. The majority of those state
>(C)itizens that I know, are in Free Enterprise, which is not the same
>as the Capitalist system of enterprise. We use silver and gold eagles,
>which are still being minted by the Treasury Dept.
We do not have true Capitalism in the US anymore. It is a mixed economy of
Socialism mixed with overtones of Free Enterprise. Capitalism, per se, is
not bad. But the type of "Capitalism" practiced today is distorted by the
monetary depreciation of our currency, which has lost over 95% of its
buying power since 1933. This fosters an "I don't care" attitude in
industry, and the downhill slide to ruthless, dog-eat-dog dirty dealings
is begun.
The average merchant today has never seen real currency. How do you pay
for a meal at a restaurant? Doesn't it tire you to have to explain this to
EVERY merchant you come in contact with? Perhaps I'm missing some point
here which nullifies all these concerns, but at my current perception of
the situation, it sounds like there are many obstacles to the normal
commercial freedoms we enjoy as Federal (c)itizens.
>>Near the end of your treatise, you make note of contractual
>>obligations
>>incurred when a state Citizen signs a Social Security contract. Does
>>not that contract become invalid by virtue of the fact that the
>signing >party does not understand the implications behind it on the
>basis of >trickery?
>
>Thats true, if one doesn't understand the contractual nexus of any
>contract, then that contract is void on its face and invalid. (kinda
>like Tony) hehehehe. However, if any (C)itizen feels the need, for some
>insane reason, to enter into a socialist security contract then he/she
>may stamp the SS-5 application with "U.C.C 1-207 Without Prejudice",
>although why would anyone want anything to do whith that garbage is
>beyond me.
Furthermore, I forgot to mention that many of these "contracts" are not on
the same paper we are signing, which also makes them invalid. When you
sign a bank signature card, you are unknowingly being "bound" to the terms
of volumes of IRS code that are NOT stated on that form you just signed.
I'd like to know more about U.C.C. 1-207.
>>I once read somewhere that any law that is too complex for the citizen
>>to understand, should be banished.
>
>Actually it's a law. And the majority of "statutory regulation", unless
>the interpretations can be found in Andersons, is beyond the average
>understanding of the average man. (and well waaayyyy beyond Tony's
>scope of comprehension).. YA!!!!
I thought so, but wasn't absolute certain of it.
>> One of our forefathers said that. I can
>>hardly imagine a contract being legally binding when forced to sign
>>under coersion, or by vice of false education.
>>
>>All you other points are well-stated. You cleared up a lot of
>confusion
>>about the rights of the People by clarifying the Status issue.
>
>Also.. One point to ponder... The system is based on falsehoods. Unless
>one is specifically named by his/her "Christian" name in any suit, then
>he/she is not the one named in the suit. That fact has gotten a good
>bunch of (C)itizens out from under the heals of the tyrants.
>
>>Best regards,
> U-2
>>Bass Pig
>
>Hope you enjoyed. REALLY hope it pissed off Tony.
There are many technicalities behind a lot of cases, but I like to fight
for rights on fundamental levels, not eek by on incidental technicalities
that still leave me open to prosecution on the main charges at some later
date.
Your input has shed some new insight on these issues and is appreciated by
this Individual.
Bass Pig
Chuck Adams
> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
Tony, meet Steve Winter. Steve Winter, meet Tony.
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <19970108221...@ladder01.news.aol.com> mweis...@aol.com
writes:
I'll go into the other computer and dig this stuff up. Hopefully it'll
answer more specifically want you want to know
B.J.
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5avm4u$i...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
writes: >>>In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
>>anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>>>writes from the inner depths of rectumville:
>>>>This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>>>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
>>mind? Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never
signed), he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>>>>In <5ah2pl$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com
>>>>) writes:>Get the gripe off of your peanut sized stiffy you brain
>>>>are "RESIDENTS" of the federal areas. Eat your own defication and
>>>>expire, you supporter of the communist democracy!
>>>B.J.
>
> This item already received privately from either Iris Heather
>Hoggatt or B.J., the claimed "common law" lawyer who prefers to be
>publicly anonymous. Why to me, I dunno.
>
> It's just more wild-assed, wild-eyed propaganda. All too common
on
>the Internet.
>
> I did read an interesting article today: Internet, the new global
>village of village idiots. Sorta fits, eh wot?
>
> -=Tony=-
>
>ps: the entirety repeated out of courtesy to whomever wrote the item
>and carefully right-justified all lines "for public comsumption". :-)
>It's still ALL propaganda of the first order.
>
As a representing "Agent" of your government, the burden of proof still
rests upon you to dis-prove otherwise. We have seen NO SUCH dis-proof.
Only worn out phraseology and limp-wristed rhetoric. And as far as
being what you call private messages, You must really be exquistitly
ignorant! Anything posted thru telephone lines in America (notice I
included all three United States of America's)is recorded in Boulder,
The Corporate State of Colorado. Get off your dead asshole and do some
research. Prove ALL of us Citizens at common-law wrong! Prove 130 years
of court cases prior to the implimintation of Admiralty jurisdiction
wrong. If you can remember (I doubt it though), you asked for info from
"Readers not in the USA"). Recall? It may help for you to pull your
head back out into the sunshine instead of your best friend between
your asscheecks!
SIGNED... Citizen Burton James, Sui-Juris, Sua Proteste Esse, In law,
at common-law
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5b1c0j$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com(Citizen
Burton James, Sui-Juris ) writes:
>
>I looked up U.C.C. 1-207 on the Internet, but found a number of sites
>mentioning it, but not the statute or code itself. I'd like to read a
copy
>of it. Presently, it is nearly impossible for me to find work, and I
would
>imagine that the filter of having to deal with these special
requirements
>as a sovereign Citizen would further limit the number of potential
>empoyers who'd want to bother hiring me. Most businesses are afraid of
>"rocking the boat" and placing themselves in jeopardy for hiring
anyone
>who's contractual agreement is contraversial. How do you work around
that?
>What kinds of jobs (other than migratory day labor) are available.
If a company is worth working for, then they will hire you. If not,
then
they can be held liabil under Title 7, 42USC, for discrimination on
the basis of National Origins, or religious beliefs. (SEE* the Taco
Bell
cases, or I can e-mail them to you) Sovereigns do need to be extra
cautious
though when pursuing a Title 42.
>If you drive on the road without a license and registration, sooner or
>later, the police will pull you over. What do you tell them? How do
you
>avoid arrest?
Sometimes it's unavoidable. However, you can take several approaches to
this
one as well. One is complete silence. You may spend 72 hrs in jail.
Never
sign anything. But, in the end the judge will hang on a Title 18, and
you will wind up with 60,000 or so frn's. Another approach is if you
need
a license to "operate" in a class C situation, such as transportation
for
hire, is to stamp the reservation of rights above your sig on your next
license. Better yet, is to turn in the license, and revoke the
instrument
that bears your power of attorney, that grants them authority over you,
then take all the tests over again. When it comes to putting your
John Hancock to any paperwork, make sure to stamp above your sig the
reservation of rights. (I burned mine in with a solder iron), then when
the
time came to revoke my power of attorney, I never renewed.
>What about liability? You're on a public highway and you MUST show
>financial responsibility in the event the 3,000lb killing machine we
call
>a car goes out of control and injures another party. How does one
remain
>accountable without a licence and registration?
Karl Granse from Minnesota Republic recomends taking out a personal
liability form of insurance. Most sovereigns either are more cautious
or put the vehicle into a foreign trust, then insure with the trust.
Actually the Free enterprise system is still in good working order.
I could spend hours on this subject alone. I would like to send you a
tape of one of my associates giving a seminar on Free enterprise and
setting up a foreign trust. They normally charge for it, but for
you it be a freebee. I have a fair amount of material that I would like
to send you, as it would consume more space than this server can handle
in
this forum.
>Furthermore, I forgot to mention that many of these "contracts" are
not on
>the same paper we are signing, which also makes them invalid. When you
>sign a bank signature card, you are unknowingly being "bound" to the
terms
>of volumes of IRS code that are NOT stated on that form you just
signed.
>I'd like to know more about U.C.C. 1-207.
With 55,000 some odd pages in banking regs alone, it's hard to grasp
the
full implications of them.
>There are many technicalities behind a lot of cases, but I like to
fight
>for rights on fundamental levels, not eek by on incidental
technicalities
>that still leave me open to prosecution on the main charges at some
later
>date.
Sure. I can understand that one. That's why we try to keep it as simple
as possible and cover all your bases the first time. The last thing to
take care of is the IRS. We notify everyone from the Sec of State in
D.C. to the county auditor where you live.
Your input has shed some new insight on these issues and is appreciated
by
this Individual.
Bass Pig
Cool.
Signed(by demand of PhonyTony) Citizen Burton James, Sui-Juris,
Sua-proteste Esse, in law, at common-law.
P.S. more posts follow.
mweis...@aol.com
In article <5b1c0j$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>I'll go into the other computer and dig this stuff up. Hopefully it'll
>answer more specifically want you want to know
via the e-mail and the other thread we started. Thanks.
Bass Pig
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5b1c0j$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com(Citizen
Burton James) writes:
>
>>
>>Your input has shed some new insight on these issues and is
>appreciated by
>>this Individual.
>>
>>Bass Pig
>
Judge: "Let me see that license!" (He looks at it and turns to the
officer) "You didn't notice this printing under the signature on this
license, when you copied his name and address onto the ticket?"
Officer: "Oh, no. I was just getting the address -- I didn't look
down there."
Judge: "You're not very observant as an officer. Therefore, I'm
afraid I cannot accept your testimony in regards to the facts of this
case. This case is dismissed."
6. In this case, the Judge found a convenient way out -- he could
say that the officer was not observant enough to be a reliable
witness. He did not want to admit the real nature of the
jurisdiction of his court. Once it was in the record that you had
written "Without prejudice UCC 1-207" on your license, the judge knew
that he would have to admit that:
a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;
b. you had done it sufficiently by writing "Without prejudice UCC 1-
207" on your driver's license;
c. the statute would now have to be read in harmony with the Common
Law, and the Common Law says the statute exists, but there is no
injured party; and since there is no injured party or complaining
witness, the court has no jurisdiction under the Common Law.
7. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the case,
then you will want to ask him the following question:
Your Honor, let me understand this correctly: has this court
made a legal determination that it has authority under the
jurisdiction that it is operating under, to ignore two sections of
the Uniform Commercial Code which have been called to its attention?
If he says yes, tell him that you put the court on notice that
you will appeal that legal determination, and that if you are damaged
by his actions, you will sue him in a common law action -- under the
jurisdiction of the UCC. This will work just as well with the
Internal Revenue Service. In fact, we can use the UCC with the IRS
before we got to court.
USING THE CODE WITH THE IRS
If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency, this is called a
"presentment" in the Uniform Commercial Code. A "presentment" in the
UCC is very similar to the Common Law. First we must understand just
how this works in the Common Law.
Suppose I get a man's name from a phone book -- someone I have
never met. And I send him a bill or invoice on nice letterhead which
says, "For services rendered: $10,000". I send this by Certified
Mail to him at the address taken from the phone book. The man has to
sign for it before he can open it, so I get a receipt that he
received it. When he opens it, he finds an invoice for $10,000 and
the following statement: "If you have any questions concerning this
bill or the services rendered, you have thirty days to make your
questions or objections known."
Of course, he has never heard of me, so he just throws the bill
away and assumes that I'm confused or crazy. At the end of thirty
days, I go to court and get a default judgment against him. He
received a bill for $10,000, was given thirty days to respond. He
failed to object to it or ask any questions about it. Now he has
defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect the $10,000.
That's Common Law. The UCC works on the same principle. The
minute you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, you return it
immediately with a letter that says:
The presentment above is dishonored. (your name) has
reserved all of his/her rights under the Uniform Commercial Code at
UCC 1-207.
This should be all that is necessary, as there is nothing more
that they can do. In fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona who
received a Notice of Deficiency. The man sent a letter such as this,
dishonoring the "presentment." The IRS wrote back that they could
not make a determination at that office, but were turning it over to
the Collections Department. A letter was attached from the
Collections Department which said they were sorry for the
inconvenience they had caused him and that the Notice of Deficiency
had been withdrawn. So you can see that if it is handled properly,
these things are easily resolved.
IMPENDING BANKRUPTCY
On my way here, I had a chance to visit with the Governor of
Wyoming. He is very concerned that if he runs for office this
November, that there won't be a State of Wyoming at the end of four
years. He believes that the International Bankers might foreclose on
the nation and officially admit that they own the whole world. They
could round up everybody in the state capitol building, put them in
an internment camp and hold them indefinitely. They may give them a
trial, or they may not. They will do whatever they want. As I
explained earlier, it has not been expedient to foreclose on the
nation until they could get everything ready. This is where the
Federal Emergency Management Agency comes in. It has been put in
place without anyone really noticing it.
FEMA
FEMA, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been
designed for when America is officially declared bankrupt, which
would be a national emergency. In a national emergency, all
Constitutional Rights and all law that previously existed would be
suspended. FEMA has created large concentration camps where they
would put anyone who might cause trouble for the orderly plan and
process of the new regime to take over the nation.
Even a governor could be thrown into one of these internment
camps, and kept there indefinitely. This is all in place now, and
they are just waiting to declare a national emergency. Then even
state governments could be dissolved. Anybody who might oppose the
new regime could be imprisoned until a new set of laws could be
written and a new government set up. The Governor knows all this,
and he is very concerned. He doesn't want to be in office when all
this happens.
I visited with him and I told him that there are certain actions
we should take right now. I think we should consider the fact that,
according to the Uniform Commercial Code, Wyoming is an accommodation
party (see Note #5) to the national debt. To understand this we must
realize that there are three separate entities known as the United
States.
THE ROTHSCHILD INFLUENCE
When America was founded, the Rothschilds were very unhappy
because it was founded on the Common Law. The Common Law is based on
substance, and this substance is mentioned in the Constitution as
gold or silver. America is a Constitutional Republic -- that is a
union of the States under the Constitution. When Congress was
working for the Republic, the only thing it could borrow was gold or
silver, and the Rothschild banks did not loan gold or silver.
Naturally, they did not like this new government.
The Rothschilds had a deal with the King of England. He would
borrow paper and agree to repay in gold. But these United States,
with their Constitution, were an obstacle to them, and it was much to
the Rothschild's advantage to get the colonies back under the King.
So the Rothschilds financed the War of 1812 to bring America back
under England. Of course, that didn't work, so they had to find
another way.
THE FLAW IN THE CONSTITUTION:
TWO NATIONS IN ONE
It was around the time of the American Civil War that they
discovered a flaw in the Constitution. The flaw was Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17.
Remember that there are two nations called "United States."
What is a nation? See if you would agree to this definition:
Whenever you have a governing body, having a prescribed
territory containing a body of people.
Is that a nation? Yes. We have a governing body in the
Republic -- the three branch government. There are the legislative,
the executive and the judicial branches, with a constitution. There
is a prescribed territory containing a body of people. This is a
Constitutional Republic.
But, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 gave Congress, which is the
legislative branch of the three branch government, exclusive rule
over a given territory known as the District of Columbia, containing
a body of people. Here we have a nation within a nation. This is a
legislative democracy within a Constitutional Republic.
When Congress was part of the Constitutional Republic, it had
the obligation of providing a medium of exchange for us. Its duty
was to coin gold or silver. Anyone who had a piece of gold or silver
could bring it in and have it freely minted into coin. This was the
medium of exchange for the Republic.
But, in the Legislative Democracy (over Washington D.C.),
Congress is not limited by the Constitution. Congress has exclusive
rule over the District of Columbia. The legislators can make the law
by a majority vote -- that makes it a democracy; they have the
authority to have administrative agents to enforce their own law; and
they have courts in the legislative branch of government, to try
their own law. Here we have the legislature making the law,
enforcing the law and trying the law, all within the one branch of
government. This is a one branch government within a three branch
government.
Under the three branch government, the Congress passes law which
has to be in harmony with the Constitution, the Executive enforces
the law passed by the Congress, and the Judiciary tries the law,
pursuant to the Constitution.
THE THREE BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and the ONE BRANCH
LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY are both called THE UNITED STATES. One is the
federal United States, and the other is the continental United
States.
ARE YOU A UNITED STATES CITIZEN?
If you say that you are a United States citizen, which United
States are you referring to? Anyone who lives in the District of
Columbia is a United States citizen. The remaining population in the
fifty states is the national citizenry of the nation. We are
domiciled in various sovereign states, protected by the constitutions
of those states from any direct rule of Congress over us. In the
democracy, anyone who lives in those states known as Washington D.C.,
Guam, Puerto Rico, or any of the other federally held territories is
a citizen of the United States [D.C.].
We must be careful with our choice of words -- we are not
United States citizens. We are not subject to Congress.
Congress has exclusive rule over a given territory, and we are not
part of that territory.
Where did Congress get the authority to write the Internal
Revenue Code? It is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
Constitution. To pass that law, they only needed a majority vote.
There is no other way that they could pass laws directly affecting
individuals. Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, was passed as law
for another nation (remember our definition of "nation"), but Title
26 is not consistent with the Bill of Rights. If you try to fight
the IRS, you have no rights -- the Code does not give you any of your
constitutional rights. It simply says, "You failed to file an income
tax form -- you failed to perform in some specific manner."
Remember, under the Common Law, you are free to do whatever you
want as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty or
property of anyone else. If you do not want to perform, you don't
have to. The only way you can be compelled to perform under the
Constitution in the continental United States, is if you have entered
a contract. But if you are not under a contract you can not be
compelled to perform. How can you be compelled to file an income tax
form, or any form?
When Congress works for the Republic, every law it passes must
be in harmony with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but when
Congress works for the Legislative Democracy, any law it passes
becomes the law of the land (remember, Congress has exclusive
legislative control over federal territory).
If you are charged with Willful Failure to file an income tax
1040 form, that is a law for a different nation. You are a non-
resident alien to that nation. It is a foreign corporation to you.
It is not the Republic of the continental United States coming after
you. It is a foreign nation -- a legislative democracy of a foreign
nation coming after you.
If you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, it is a
presentment from the federal United States and then you can use the
UCC to dishonor it, and you can also mention that you are among the
national citizenry of the continental United States, and you are a
non-resident alien to the federal United States. You never lived in
a federal territory and never had any income from the federal United
States.
Furthermore, you cannot be required to file or pay taxes under
the compelled benefit of using the Federal Reserve Notes, because you
have reserved your rights under the Common Law through the Uniform
Commercial Code at 1-207.
ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS
The Founding Fathers would never have created a government that
was going to boss them around! There were 13 sovereign States. They
were nations, and they joined together for protection from foreign
enemies. They provided a means by which the union of the sovereign
could fend off foreign enemies. But they never gave the Congress of
the federal United States direct rule over any citizen of any state.
They were not going to be ordered around by that government they set
up.
FEDERAL REGIONS
The Supreme Court has declared that Congress can rule what
Congress creates. Congress did not create the States, but Congress
did create federal regions. So Congress can rule the federal
regions, but Congress can not rule the States. How have we been
tricked into federal regions?
THE ZIP CODE TRICK
Remember how the government always comes to us and says, "I'm
from the government and I'm here to help you." The government went
out into the various states and said, "We don't want you to have to
go to all that trouble of writing three or four letters to abbreviate
the name of the state -- such as Ariz. for Arizona. Just write AZ,
instead of Ariz. Or you can just write WY for Wyoming instead of
Wyo." So all of the states of the union have got a new two-letter
abbreviation. It is RI, instead of R.I. They have just left off the
periods. When you use a two-letter state abbreviation, you are
compelled to use a zip code, because there are so many states, for
example, which start with M. ME is Maine -- MI is Michigan. How many
people dot every "i", or make an "i" that looks like an "e"? With
MA, MO, MN, MS, etc., and some sloppy writing, you could not tell one
from another. So, we have to use the zip code in order to tell them
apart. But if you wrote Mich., or Minn., or Miss., there would be no
real problem telling which state it was.
There is no harm in using the zip code, if you lawfully identify
your state. I found out that no state legislature has met to
lawfully change the abbreviation of the state from the old
abbreviation to the new. Therefore, if you do not use the lawful
abbreviation for your state, but use the shorter new abbreviation,
you have to use the zip code.
Look on page 11 of the Zip Code Directory, and it will tell you
that the first digit of your zip code is the federal region in which
you reside. If you use AZ for Arizona, you cannot use the state
constitution to protect you because you did not identify your state.
You used the zip code, which identifies which federal region you live
in. And Congress may rule directly federal regions, but it cannot
rule the citizens of any state.
ACCOMMODATION PARTY
Let's look at how the states have become the accommodation party
to the national debt. There are many people I have talked to,
including the Governor, who are very concerned about this, and who
know that it could happen very soon.
If America is declared a bankrupt nation, it will be a national
emergency. The Federal Emergency Management Agency will take over,
and anyone who opposes the new government of the creditors can be
sent to a detention camp in Alaska. We will have no rights
whatsoever. They have already set up prison camps with work camps
nearby so the people can be used for slave labor. It could be the
governors, legislators and other leaders who would be hauled away to
Alaska, while the people now disenfranchised from power would likely
be chosen to run the new government. This could all happen very
soon, as the national debt is so large as to be unpayable. Even the
interest on the debt is virtually unpayable.
As I explained, the national debt -- more than three trillion
dollars -- is not owed by the continental United States. It is the
federal United States that had authority to borrow bank credit. When
Congress worked for the continental United States, it could only
borrow gold or silver, so the national debt was borrowed in the name
of the federal United States. The federal United States has been
bankrupt since 1938, but the federal United States had to trap the
States into assuming the debt obligation of the federal debt.
In the Uniform Commercial Code, we find the term "accommodation
party"(see Note #5). How did the states become the "accommodation
party" to the federal debt? The federal government, through our
money system, made the states deal in Federal Reserve Notes, which
means that everything the states do is "colorable." Under the
"colorable" jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code, all of the
states are the accommodation party to the federal debt.
Now the concern is to find out how we can get out of this
situation. I told the Governor that in the Common Law and the Law of
Merchants -- that's the International Law Merchant -- there is a term
called no-interest contract. A no-interest contract is void and
unenforceable. What is a no-interest contract?
NO-INTEREST CONTRACT
If I were to insure a house that did not belong to me, that
would be a no-interest contract. I would just want the house to burn
down. I would pay a small premium, perhaps a few hundred dollars,
and insure it for 80,000 dollars against fire. Then I would be
waiting for it to burn so I could trade my small premium for $80,000.
Under the Common Law and under international law of the Law Merchant,
that is called a no-interest contract, and it is void and
unenforceable in any court.
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5b1c0j$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com( Citizen
Burton James ) writes:
>
>>Your input has shed some new insight on these issues and is
>appreciated by
>>this Individual.
>>
>>Bass Pig
>
COURTS OF CONTRACT
You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be
charged with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn't
the judge sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you
must understand that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 10,
gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not
infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts
are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where
contracts can be enforced -- Equity or Admiralty. But we find them
being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the embarrassing
part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a
corner in their courts. We will cover this more later.
CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY
Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is
void and unenforceable. These are characteristics of a Common Law
contract. There is another characteristic -- it must be based on
substance. For example, contracts used to read, "For one dollar and
other valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc." That
was a valid contract -- the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar.
Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said, "For one Federal Reserve
Note and other considerations, I will paint your house..." And
suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you
go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You
see, a Federal Reserve Note is a "colorable" dollar, as it has no
substance (see note #1 at end), and in a Common Law jurisdiction,
that contract would be unenforceable.
COLORABLE MONEY - COLORABLE COURTS
The word "colorable" means something that appears to be genuine,
but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a
dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold)
it is "colorable." If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract,
then the contract becomes a "colorable" contract. And "colorable"
contracts must be enforced under a "colorable" jurisdiction. So by
creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a
jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts which use them. We now
have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine
Admiralty jurisdiction. It is "colorable" Admiralty Jurisdiction the
judges are enforcing because we are using "colorable money."
Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let's
see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
The government set up a "colorable" law system to fit the
"colorable" currency. It used to be called the Law of Merchants or
Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was
redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve
Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which
was completely "colorable" from start to finish. This system of law
was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in
every state. This is "colorable" law, and it is used in all the
courts.
I explained one of the keys earlier, which is that the country
is bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says "Jump!" then
the slave had better jump, because the master has the right to cut
his head off. As slaves, we have no rights. But the
creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created a system of
law called the Uniform Commercial Code. This "colorable"
jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the next key to
understanding what has happened.
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT
One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial
Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1)
knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally.
Under the U.C.C., this is not so. First of all, contracts are
unnecessary. Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding, and if
you only exercise the benefits of an "agreement", it is presumed or
implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those
benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you
are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute
involved with that benefit. The method has been to get everybody
exercising a benefit and they don't even have to tell the people what
the benefit is. Some people think it is the driver's license, the
marriage license or the birth certificate, etc. I believe it is none
of these.
COMPELLED BENEFIT
I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the
privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead of
paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance.
If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the
milk, and the milk bought the dollar -- substance for substance. But
if I use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not paid for
it. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is
worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive value.
Congress offers us this benefit:
Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent
all over the continental United States. It will be legal tender for
all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you
cannot be sued for not paying your debts.
So now they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can
just discharge your debts instead of paying your debts." When we use
this "colorable" money to discharge our debts, we cannot use a Common
Law court. We can only use a "colorable" court. We are completely
under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code -- we are using
non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging debt
rather than paying debt.
REMEDY AND RECOURSE
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics:
Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law.
The Recourse is if you have been damaged under the law, you can
recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even
the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a
long time we could not find it. If you go to a law library and ask
to see the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of
books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you
pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been
intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to
discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in the UCC. They
are found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.
REMEDY
The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever
rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such
rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-
207.7)
It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are
in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and
say, "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS", the judge will most likely
say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in
contempt of court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that.
Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you
cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another.
For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you
filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the
French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No.
The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME -- I'M NOT A
FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the
jurisdiction in which you are charged -- not under some other
jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of
rights under the U.C.C. 1-207.
UCC 1-207 goes on to say:
When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make
a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its
assertion at a later date. (UCC 1-207.9)
You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:
The Sufficiency of the Reservation -- Any expression indicating
an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "without
prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4)
Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal
Reserve Notes --in any way, shape or manner -- under your signature
write:
Without Prejudice UCC 1-207 (see Note #2)
This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-207.4, that you
have sufficiently reserved your rights.
It is very important to understand just what this means. For
example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was
asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice
UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court. He had not tried to
understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get
out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge
asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge
that he was not prejudiced against anyone... The judge knew that the
man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know
what it means.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207
When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with
your signature, you are saying:
"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any
contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly,
voluntarily and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the
liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or
commercial agreement."
What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial
agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver
dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so you have
to use Federal Reserve Notes -- you have to accept the benefit. The
government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with
limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice
they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you
are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to
obey every statute, ordinance and regulation of the government, at
all levels of government -- federal, state and local.
If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the
judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to
the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103 -- the argument
and recourse.
If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and
photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get
the Anderson edition (see Note #3). Some of the law libraries will
only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to
understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten
parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.
RECOURSE
The Recourse appears in the uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6,
which says:
The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, (which remains in
force), except where displaced by the code. A statute should be
construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear
legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.
This is the argument we use in court.
The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the
Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United
States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But,
it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not
to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a
sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207,
you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with
the Common Law.
If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court
produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If,
for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seatbelt,
you may ask the court who was injured as a result of your failure to
"buckle up."
However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves ahead
with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of
1-103.6, which states:
The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.
Tell the judge:
"Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating
my right under the Uniform Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under
the UCC, to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised
the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with
the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come
forth with the damaged party."
If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act
confused and ask this question:
"Let me see if I understand, Your Honor: Has this court made a
legal determination that the sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform
Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under,
are not valid law before this court?"
Now the judge is in a jam! How can the court throw out one part
of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, "yes", then you say:
"I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal
determination."
Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The
judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION -- TRAFFIC COURT
Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let us
look at a court situation such as a traffic violation. Assume you
ran through a yellow light and a policeman gave you a traffic ticket.
1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at least
three weeks. This you can do by being pleasant and cooperative with
the officer. Explain to him that you are very busy and ask if he
could please set your court appearance for about three weeks away.
(At this point we need to remember the government's trick: "I'm from
the government, I'm here to help you." Now we want to use this
approach with them.)
2. The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic court and say:
"I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I want to
save the government some money [this will get his attention]. I am
undoubtedly going to appeal this case. As you know, in an appeal, I
have to have a transcript, but the traffic court doesn't have a court
reporter. It would be a waste of taxpayer's money to run me through
this court and then to have to give me a trial de novo in a court of
record. I do need a transcript for appealing, and to save the
government some money, maybe you could schedule me to appear in a
court of record."
You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually
agree that there is plenty of time to schedule your trial for a court
of record. Now your first appearance is in a court of record and not
in a traffic court, where there is no record.
When you get into court, there will be a court reporter there
who records every word the judge speaks, so the judge is much more
careful in a court of record. You will be in a much better situation
there than in a traffic court. If there is no record, the judge can
say whatever he wants -- he can call you all sorts of names and tell
you that you have no rights, and so on -- and deny it all later.
3. When you get into court, the judge will read the charges: driving
through a yellow light, or whatever, and this is a violation of
ordinance XYZ. He will ask, "Do you understand the charges against
you?" (see note #4)
4. "Well, Your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask before
I can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I think it could be
answered if I could put the officer on the stand for a moment and ask
him a few short questions."
Judge: "I don't see why not. Let's swear the officer in and have him
take the stand."
5. "Is this the instrument that you gave me?" (handing him the
traffic citation)
Officer: "Yes, this is a copy of it. The judge has the other portion
of it."
"Where did you get my address that you wrote on that citation?"
Officer: "Well, I got it from your driver's license."
(Handing the officer your driver's license) "Is this the document
you copied my name and address from?"
Officer: "Yes, this is where I got it."
"While you've got that in your hand, would you read the signature
that's on that license?" (The officer reads the signature) "While
you're there, would you read into the record what it says under the
signature?"
Officer: "It says - Without prejudice UCC 1-207."
Chuck Adams
>As a representing "Agent" of your government, the burden of proof still
>rests upon you to dis-prove otherwise. We have seen NO SUCH dis-proof.
>Only worn out phraseology and limp-wristed rhetoric. And as far as
>being what you call private messages, You must really be exquistitly
>ignorant! Anything posted thru telephone lines in America (notice I
>included all three United States of America's)is recorded in Boulder,
>The Corporate State of Colorado. Get off your dead asshole and do some
The same People's Republic of Boulder that business is abandoning in droves?
Hey, if they're archiving everything, I just have one question: who do they
get their disks from?
I was born in Boulder. People say that explains a lot...
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5b30nu$r...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> ch...@nospam.zxcvbnm.com (Chuck
The fed has three main phone centers scattered around the globe, and a
host of smaller ones. They intercept transmissions of all phone calls
and can keep the input for up to 6 months without a court order. Here's
a note you may find of interest, Colorado is not really a state. It
achieved de-facto statehood by ex-post-facto law issued by the Congress
of DC, which is forbidden by the Constitution. Ohio is another.
B.J. at nlnr1...@juno.com
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5b1c0j$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com(Citizen
Burton James ) writes:
>>
>>Your input has shed some new insight on these issues and is
>appreciated by
>>this Individual.
>>
>>Bass Pig
I transcribed this from the Howard Freeman tape/seminar from the Bo
Gritz
for president '92 campaign
1-207---The making of is valid reservation of rights concerning
contracts.
A reservation shall be made sufficient by stating or signing "Without
Prejudice", or "Under Protest".
1-207.7--- The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves
whatever
rights the person then possesses and prevents the loss of such right by
application of concepts of waiver or estoppel.
1-207.9--- When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to
make
a reservation thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its assertion
at
a later date.
This is basically how it reads at the Federal level. Since most states
have
adopted this code, they have variations, but most are basically the
same.
The corporate state of Wa.'s ver. is 62a UCC.
REMEDY
Reserve Notes --in any way, shape or manner -- above your signature
write:
"Without Prejudice" UCC 1-207
This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-207.4, that you
WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207
the Anderson edition. Some of the law libraries will
only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to
understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten
parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.
This is generally how a court case unfolds
COURT DEFENSE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
REMEDY:U.C.C.1-207, THIS IS A VALID RESERVATION OF EXPLICIT RIGHTS
RECOURSE:U.C.C.1-103, ARGUMENT AND RECOURSE - A STATUTE MUST BE
CONSTRUED
UNDER COMMON LAW.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; THIS MEANS THAT YOU RESERVE YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. THAT INDICATES YOUR INTENSION OF PRESERVATION
OF
RIGHTS IN THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE WHEREBY YOU MIGHT PRESERVE YOUR
COMMON LAW RIGHT TO NOT BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM UNDER ANY CONTRACT THAT
YOU DID NOT ENTER INTO KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, OR INTENSIONALY, AND
FURTHERMORE, IT NOTIFIES ALL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT THAT
YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE LIABILLITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMPELLED BENEFIT
OF ANY UNREVEALED COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT.
COURT ARGUMENT
(note) Never make a plea. When asked how you plea, state; I have no
plea, as
I am not under the scope and purview of the statutes, nor am I within
the
state of the forum. Chances are that the "judge" will enter a plea for
you.
If that occurs, say... Let the record show that the judge has entered a
plea
for the Accused. Then you will be asked if you understand the charges.
(note2) Never refer to yourself as "The defendant". This term will
grant
jurisdiction to the court.
YOU:LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE ACCUSED DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE
CHARGES!
JUDGE:WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE CHARGES?
ARE YOU SOME KIND OF IDIOT?
YOU: IT'S NOT THE LETTER OF THE STATUTE THAT I DONT UNDERSTAND,
IT'S THE NATURE OF THE STATUTE THAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT
GIVES ME THE AUTHORITY TO ASK THE COURT, AND IT GIVES THE COURT THE
DUTY,
UPON MY REQUEST, TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE NATURE OF THE STATUTE IS.
JUDGE; WELL, WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE NATURE OF THIS STATUTE THAT YOU
DON'T UNDERSTAND?
YOU:WELL, judge, IF THIS COURT WERE OPERATING UNDER THE COMMON LAW, IN
ORDER
FOR THIS COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ME, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE
SOMEONE
DAMAGED, AND WHO COULD BE DAMAGED IF I DIDNT FILE A TAX RETURN, OR
BUCKLE MY
SEAT BELT? THERE IS NO DAMAGED PARTY, SO SURELY YOUR HONOR, THIS COURT
IS
NOT PROCEEDING AGAINST ME UNDER THE COMMON LAW.
JUDGE:THAT IS TRUE. THIS COURT IS NOT OPERATING UNDER THE COMMON LAW.
YOU:THANK YOU, judge. BUT NOW judge, I'M A BIT PUZZELED. THIS COURT
CAN'T BE
OPERATING UNDER EQUITY, BECAUSE THIS IS A CRIMINAL ACTION, AND EQUITY
IS A
CIVIL ACTION. IS THIS COURT OPERATING IN EQUITY?
JUDGEL:NO WE'RE NOT OPERATING UNDER EQUITY.
YOU:THANK YOU, judge ,THAT HELPS A LOT, BUT NOW, THIS COURT COULD BE
OPERATING UNDER ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, BUT IN ORDER TO OPERATE UNDER
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A VALID INTERNATIONAL
MARITIME CONTRACT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BREACHED, AND I WOULD HAVE TO BE
A PARTY TO THIS CONTRACT, AND I'M NOT AWARE OF HAVING ENTERED INTO ANY
MARITIME CONTRACTS. THERFORE I WOULD HAVE TO DEMAND ANY CONTRACTS BE
PLACED INTO EVIDENCE, SO THAT I COULD CHALLENGE IT'S VALLIDITY. BUT
THERE'S NO INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONTRACTS IN EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE,
SO
SURELY judge, THIS COURT IS NOT OPERATING UNDER ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION,
IS IT , judge?
JUDGE; NO. THIS COURT IS NOT OPERATING UNDER ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.
YOU:OH, BUT YOU SEE , judge, WHY I'M SO CONFUSED AND DO NOT UNDERSTAND
THE
CHARGE. I'VE JUST USED ALL THE JURISDICTIONS FOR ARTICLE THREE JUDICIAL
COURT. THAT'S THE ONLY THREE MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND YOU
SAID
THAT THIS COURT ISN'T OPERATING UNDER ANY OF THEM. COULD THIS COURT BE
OPERATING UNDER ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION?
JUDGE:YES! THIS COURT IS OPERATING UNDER ARTICLE ONE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
YOU:OH, JUDGE, THEN THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW, THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE
TRIBUNAL. IS THAT CORRECT judge?
JUDGE:YES!
YOU:WELL NOW, judge, THAT MEANS THAT IT'S NOT THE PEOPLE OF Washington
THAT ARE COMMING AFTER ME, IT'S THE CORPORATE STATE OF WASHINGTON
THAT IS THE PLAINTIF IN THIS CASE. ISN'T THAT CORRECT, judge?
JUDGE:YES, YOU DIDN'T DAMAGE ANY PERSON OR PROPERTY, SO IT'S THE
CORPORATE
STATE THAT'S COMMING AFTER YOU!
YOU:WELL, IF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAS A DISPUTE WITH ME,ONE OF THE
CITIZENERY, THERE MUST BE A CONTRACT OF SOME KIND THAT IS BEING FORCED
UPON ME. IS THAT CORRECT, judge?
JUDGE:YES. THIS IS A STATUTORY JURISDICTION AND YOUR OBLIGATED TO PAY
FOR
THE VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUTES OF THIS STATE!
YOU:BUT, judge, THE STATUTES ARE OF THE CORPORATE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
AND
NOT THE SOVEREIGN, Washington State. THOSE STATUTES ARE THEN NOTHING
MORE
THAN OBLIGATIONS OF SOME CONTRACT OR COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT. COULD THIS
COURT BE OPERATING UNDER THE NEGOTIABLE NSTRUMENTS LAWS WHICH HAS BEEN
CODIFIED INTO THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE? (possible end)
JUDGE; YES!
YOU:OH! WELL, judge, I UNDERSTAND NOW. YOU SEE, I HAVE EXCERSIZED THE
REMEDY PROVIDED FOR ME IN THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE UNDER
U.C.C.1-207
"Without Prejudice"!
Dismissed!
I've used this with great satisfaction, and won all but one of 41 cases
in traffic court using this technique.
Further Facts:
THE FEDERAL TAX LIEN ACT OF 1966 P.L. 89-719, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, PAGE
3722
STATES: THE ENTIRE TAXING AND MONETARY SYSTEMS ARE HEREBY PLACED UNDER
''THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE''.
THE ''BUCK ACT'' 4 U.S.C.S. 105-113 IS THE LIABILITY STATUTE FOR TITLE
26,
INCOME TAX LAWS, AND IS THE TAXING AUTHORITY FOR THE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION
TO IMPOSE ALL TAXES WHICH ALSO INCLUDES BUT NOT LIMITED TO A CITY
BUSINESS
LICENSE, DRIVERS LICENSE AND ANY TYPE OF GOVERNMENTAL LICENSE FOR USE
''IN THE STATE'', ''WITHIN THE STATE'', OR IN ANY ''FEDERAL AREA''
Iris Heather Hoggatt
>writes:
>>
>>Your input has shed some new insight on these issues and is
>appreciated by
>>this Individual.
>>
>>Bass Pig
>
UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS
In the Uniform Commercial Code, no-interest contracts are called
unconscionable contracts. The section on unconscionable contracts
covers more that forty pages in the Anderson Code. The federal
United States has involved the states as the accommodation party to
the federal debt, and I believe we could prove this to be an
unconscionable contract. We should get some litigation into the
courts before the government declares a national emergency, claiming
that this state has no lawful responsibility for the national debt
(of the federal United States), because it became an accommodation
party to this debt through an unconscionable contract. If we have
this litigation before the courts under International Law when the
nation is declared bankrupt, the creditors would have to settle this
matter first, and it would delay them. They would want the new
government to appear to be legitimate, so they could not just move
right in and take over the state, because it would be in an
International Court. This is very important at this time.
QUESTIONS AND REVIEW
Note: These are some of the questions asked after the main lecture.
Some are restatements of material presented earlier, but they contain
very valuable information which is worth repeating.
COURTROOM TECHNIQUES
Question: How do you "box in" the Judge?
This is easy to do if you don't know too much. I didn't know
too much, but I boxed them in. You must play a little dumb.
If you are arrested and you go into court, just remember that in
a criminal action, you have to understand the law or it is a
reversible error for the court to try you. If you don't understand
the law, they can't try you.
In any traffic case or tax case you are called into court and
the judge reads the law and then asks, "Do you understand the
charges?"
Defendant: No, Your Honor, I do not.
Judge: Well, what's so difficult about that charge? Either you
drove the wrong way on a one-way street or you didn't. You can only
go one way on that street, and if you go the other way it's a fifty
dollar fine. What's so difficult about this that you don't
understand?
Defendant: Well, Your Honor, it's not the letter of the law, but the
nature of the law that I don't understand. The Sixth Amendment of
the Constitution gives me the right to request the court to explain
the nature of any action against me, and upon my request, the court
has the duty to answer. I have a question about the nature of this
action.
Judge: Well, what is that -- what do you want to know?
Always ask them some easy questions first, as this establishes that
they are answering. You ask:
Defendant: Well, Your Honor, is this a Civil or a Criminal Action?
Judge: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action there could be no
fine, so it has to be criminal.)
Defendant: Thank you, Your Honor, for telling me that. Then the
record will show that this action against (your name) is a criminal
action, is that right?
Judge: Yes.
Defendant: I would like to ask another question about this criminal
action. There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the
Constitution: one is under the Common Law, and the other deals with
International Maritime Contracts, under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
Equity is Civil, and you said this is a Criminal action, so it seems
it would have to be under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law.
But what puzzles me, Your Honor, is that there is no \fniselectw
corpus delecti here that gives this court a jurisdiction over my
person and property under the Common Law. Therefore, it doesn't
appear to me that this court is moving under the Common Law.
Judge: No, I can assure you this court is not moving under the
Common Law.
Defendant: Well, thank you, Your Honor, but now you make the charge
against me even more difficult to understand. The only other
criminal jurisdiction would apply only if there was an International
Maritime Contract involved, I was a party to it, it had been
breached, and the court was operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
I don't believe I have ever been under any International Maritime
contract, so I would deny that one exists. I would have to demand
that such a contract, if it does exist, be placed into evidence, so
that I may contest it. But surely, this court is not operating under
an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
You just put the words in the judges mouth.
Judge: No, I can assure you, we're not operating under an Admiralty
Jurisdiction. We're not out in the ocean somewhere -- we're right
here in the middle of the State of (any state) . No, this is not an
Admiralty Jurisdiction.
Defendant: Thank you, Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than
ever. If this charge is not under the Common Law, or under Admiralty
-- and those are the only two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the
Constitution -- what kind of jurisdiction could this court be
operating under?
Judge: It's Statutory Jurisdiction.
Defendant: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. I'm glad you told me that.
But I have never heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I have to defend
under that, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for
Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you tell me where I might find those
rules?
There are no rules for Statutory Jurisdiction, so the judge will get
very angry at this point and say:
Judge: If you want answers to questions like that, you get yourself
a licensed attorney -- I'm not allowed to practice law from the
bench.
Defendant: Oh, Your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of
practicing law from the bench if you just answer a few questions to
explain to me the nature of this action, so that I may defend myself.
Judge: I told you before, I am not going to answer any more
questions. Do you understand that? If you ask any more questions in
regards to this, I'm going to find you in contempt of court! Now if
you can't afford a licensed attorney, the court will provide you with
one. But if you want those questions answered, you must get yourself
a licensed attorney.
Defendant: Thank you, Your Honor, but let me just see if I got this
straight. Has this court made a legal determination that it has
authority to conduct a criminal action against me, the accused, under
a secret jurisdiction, the rules of which are known only to this
court and licensed attorneys, thereby denying me the right to defend
in my own person?
He has no answer for that. The judge will probably postpone the case
and eventually just let it go. In this way, you can be as wise as a
serpent and as harmless as a dove, but you mustn't go into court with
a chip on your shoulder and as a wolf in "black sheep" country.
Remember Jesus' words, "I send you out as sheep in wolf country; be
wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove." Sheep do not attack
wolves directly. Just be an innocent little lamb who just can't
understand the charge, and remember -- they can't try you criminally
if you don't understand the charge. That would be automatically a
reversible error on appeal.
THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM
If I were a young man, 18 or 20 years old and just starting out
in my first job, I would not want Social Security. With my signature
on the application, I would write, "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207", and
I would reserve my Common Law Rights. But why wouldn't I want Social
Security today?
I got into the Social Security system in the 1930's and I paid
into it dollars that had good purchasing power. Now I'm getting a
promised return in Federal Reserve Notes which have considerably less
value. For example, in 1940, you could buy a deluxe Chevrolet for
800 dollars. With today's Federal Reserve Notes, that won't buy the
rear fenders and trunk on a new Chevrolet. If I were a young man, I
would not want to put Federal Reserve Notes into Social Security now,
and get back something later like the German mark after World War I -
- when it took a billion to buy a loaf of bread. They will give you
every Federal Reserve Note back that they promised you, but it might
not buy anything.
ASSURANCE
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you have the right in any
agreement, to demand a guarantee of performance. So, don't go to
them and say, "I want to rescind my Social Security number," or "I
refuse to take it." Just take it easy and say, "I would be happy to
get a Social Security number and enter into this contract, but I have
a little problem. How can I have assurance before I enter into this
contract that the purchasing power of the Federal Reserve Notes I get
back at the end of the contract will be as good as the ones that I
pay in at the beginning. They can't guarantee that, and you have a
right under the UCC to assurance of performance under the contract.
So tell them, "Well, I can not enter this contract unless the
government will guarantee to pay me at the end of the contract with
the same value Federal Reserve Notes that I'm paying in. Both may be
called Federal Reserve Notes, but you know that these Federal Reserve
Notes don't hold their value. I want assurance on this contract that
the Federal Reserve Notes that I get in my retirement will buy as
much as the ones that I'm giving you now in my working years." They
can't make that guarantee. If they won't give you that guarantee,
just say, "I'd be glad to sign this, but if you can't guarantee
performance under the contract, I'm afraid I can not enter the
contract.
Now, did you refuse or did they refuse? You can get the
sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which grant the right to have
assurance that the contract you have entered will be fulfilled
properly -- that the return will equal the investment. And you can
reject the contract using the Code. Using their own system of law,
you can show that they cannot make you get into a contract of that
nature. Just approach them innocently like a lamb.
It is very important to be gentle and humble in all dealings
with the government or the courts -- never raise your voice or show
anger. In the courtroom, always be polite, and build the judge up --
call him "Your Honor." Give him all the "honor" he wants. It does
no good to be difficult, but rather to be cooperative and ask
questions in a way that leads the judge to say the things which you
need to have in the record.
THE COURT REPORTER
In many courts, there will be a regular court reporter. He gets
his job at the judge's pleasure, so he doesn't want to displease the
judge. The court reporter is sworn to give an accurate transcript of
every word that is spoken in the courtroom. But if the judge makes a
slip of the tongue, he turns to his court reporter and says, "I think
you had better leave that out of the transcript; just say it got a
little too far ahead of you, and you couldn't quite get everything
in." So this will be missing from the transcript.
In one case, we brought a licensed court reporter with us and
the judge got very angry and said, "This court has a licensed court
reporter right here, and the record of this court is this court
reporter's record. No other court reporter's record means anything
in this court."
We responded with, "Of course, Your Honor, we're certainly glad
to use your regular court reporter. But you know, Your Honor,
sometimes things move so fast that a court reporter gets a little
behind, and doesn't quite keep up with it all. Wouldn't it be nice
if we had another licensed court reporter in the courtroom just in
case your court reporter got a little behind, so that we could fill
in from this other court reporter's data. I'm sure, Your Honor, that
you want an accurate transcript. (I like to use the saying: give a
bad dog a good name, and he'll live up to it!) The judge went along
with it, and from that moment on, he was very careful of what he
said.
These are little tricks to getting around in court. This is how
to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove when we enter into a
courtroom. There are others using the same information presented here
who end up in jail, handcuffed and hit over the head, because they
approach the situation with a chip on their shoulder. They try to
tell the judge what the law is and that he is a no-good scoundrel and
so on. Just be wise and harmless.
UCC 1-207 REVIEW
It is so important to know and understand the meaning of
"Without prejudice UCC 1-207", in connection with your signature,
that we should go over this once more. It is very likely that a
judge will ask you what it means. So please learn and understand
this carefully:
The use of "Without prejudice UCC 1-207", in connection with my
signature indicates that I have reserved my Common Law right not to
be compelled to perform under any contract that I did not enter into
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not
accept the liability associated with the compelled benefit of any
unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.
the Common Law, a contract must be entered into knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally, by both parties, or it can be
declared void and unenforceable. You are claiming the right not to
be compelled to perform under any contract that you did not enter
into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, and you do not accept
the liability associated with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed
contract or agreement.
The compelled benefit is the privilege to use Federal Reserve
Notes to discharge your debts with limited liability rather than to
pay your debts with silver coins. It is a compelled benefit, because
there are no silver coins in circulation. You have to eat, and you
can only buy food with the medium of exchange provided by the
government. You are not allowed to print your own money, so you are
compelled to use theirs. This is the compelled benefit of an
unrevealed commercial agreement. If you have not made a valid,
timely and explicit reservation of your rights under UCC 1-207, and
you simply exercise this benefit rendered by government, you will be
obligated, under an implied agreement, to obey every statute, at all
levels -- federal, state and local (see Note #6).
IN CONCLUSION
The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in
putting this to paper in an effort to make it readable and somewhat
compact. He wishes to offer his gratitude to Howard Freeman for the
opportunity to work with information so absolutely vital to our
survival as dignified, unenslaved human beings. He must also ask Mr.
Freeman's forgiveness for any errors committed in getting this in
print. Its purpose, as stated in the Foreword, is to make this
knowledge and wisdom available to as many people as will take the
time and trouble to read it. This is meant to be supplemental to Mr.
Freeman's recorded lectures, not a substitute. Indeed, there is no
substitute for hearing him present this material in his own words.
It is not just the law and the facts that are important here, but the
way they are used. His numerous reminders of Jesus' commission to be
"...like sheep among wolves..." cannot be overstated, and is
certainly good advice to us in all dealings -- not just in court or
with the government. Hearing him explain this in his own words
brings to life the practical application and usefulness of being
"wise" and "harmless." In fact, after being introduced to this
approach, it becomes difficult to imagine that any other way of
defending oneself from the government would be effective.
It goes without saying that none of this information presented
here is in any way, shape or form offered as legal advice. For that,
as you know, you must "get yourself a licensed attorney."
Having said that, I feel obliged to point out that one of the
most difficult aspects of dealing with a licensed attorney -- even a
good one --may be knowing just whose side he is on (he is, after all,
an officer of the court)! So for those of us who have concluded that
having an attorney means that you will soon be chained, gagged and
lead to the gallows, this information may be indispensable. For the
extraordinary challenges of appearing in court in one's own person --
\fniselectw proper -- there are few reliable sources of information.
Learning to defend ourselves, that is, being \fniselectw responsible
instead of turning over one more area of our lives to "professionals"
-- may be the only way to have any chance of digging ourselves out of
this pit of legal tyranny. Perhaps the greatest problem we face in
education today is the matter of widespread legal illiteracy.
Naturally, there will always be a number of people who just
don't care about these issues who either:
(1), have a soft life which is supported and maintained by this
secret system of law and the institutions which have grown up around
it ("I can make a bundle buying the IRS-seized homes cheap and
reselling them"), or
(2), don't believe that anything can be done about it ("You
can't fight City Hall"), or
(3), simply don't have the energy or inclination to do anything
about it ("That's nice, but let's see what's on TV").
For those good "citizens", this whole effort may seem useless or
even threatening. But it is this writer's view that God did not
intend for us to spend our lives in statutory slavery for the benefit
of a handful of secret world manipulators, even if the "masters"
grant us some token pleasures and diversions. Human dignity requires
much more than entertainment. The door is there and the key exists;
we must find it and we must use it to return to freedom!
Let us discover the mistakes we have made, let us find the
truth, let us apply it with meekness and wisdom and let us gently but
firmly reclaim the precious freedom which we have so foolishly given
up.
- September 22, 1991
FOR MORE INFORMATION
I encourage anyone interested enough to read this far, to obtain
a set of tapes of Howard Freeman and listen to them carefully. A
donation of $4.00 per tape would be appropriate. This information
was taken from tapes #'s 90-30, 90-31, 90-32, & 90-33, which may be
ordered from:
America's Promise Ministries
P.O. Box 157
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
The next set of tapes (from 1991) are #'s: 1004, 1005, and 1006, and
contain vital material not found in this transcript.
NOTES
1. Colorable - that which is in appearance only, and not in reality,
what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the
appearance of truth. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Ed.
2. Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this
demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The
simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a
stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the
document.
3. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing
Co.
4. It is very important to get it into the record that you do not
understand the charges. With that in the record, the court cannot
move forward to judge the facts. This will be covered later.
5. UCC 3-415. "Accommodation Party" - One who signs commercial paper
in any capacity for purpose of lending his name to another party to
instrument. Such a party is a surety. [Surety is, "One who undertakes
to pay money or to do some other act in the event that his principal
fails therein.]
6. See UCC 1-201. General Definitions (3) "Agreement" means the
bargain of the parties in fact as found in their language or by
implication from other circumstances including course of dealing or
usage of trade or course of performance...
THE END
cra...@_102.1
In article , mweis...@aol.com says...
>
>In article <5b1njc$s...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>>contracts.
>>A reservation shall be made sufficient by stating or signing "Without
>>Prejudice", or "Under Protest".
>
>effort.
>
>Bass Pig
Just a short note...
One of the ways you can prove you have reserved your rights under
UCC 1-207 , is to write "without prejudice UCC 1-207" under your
signature on your Driver License. BUT, when I did this on mine
( state of Florida ) I was surprised to see that laser printed version
of the license contained only my signature, and no phrase ! When I
asked the issuing goon behind the counter about this, I was just
told to "move along" and not ask questions.
Apparently the fraud goes all the way down to the local level. I know
that somewhere in all the additional paperwork that went with the
issue of my license, the phrase appears. Whatcha wanna bet that if
I needed that info, it couldn't be found !!
Just beware that the local level commies dont want you to reserve any of
your rights either......
Craven
102.1FM
Temple Terrace Community Radio
http://www.ldbrewer.com/pirate.html
ldbr...@flanet.com
mweis...@aol.com
In article <5b1njc$s...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>1-207---The making of is valid reservation of rights concerning
>contracts.
>A reservation shall be made sufficient by stating or signing "Without
>Prejudice", or "Under Protest".
Thank you for the posting. It's involved, but understandable with some
effort.
Bass Pig
Iris Heather Hoggatt
>>Your input has shed some new insight on these issues and is
>appreciated by
>>this Individual.
>>
>>Bass Pig
>
part #1
THE UCC CONNECTION
Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny
Compliments of:
Associated Conservatives of Texas
2029 Levee Street (214) 747 6275
Dallas, Texas 75207 (214) 744-1115 FAX
PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH OTHERS
FOREWORD
This is a slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of
tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was prepared
to make available the knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his
search for an accessible and understandable explanation of the
confusing state of the government and the courts. It should be
helpful to those who may have difficulty learning from such lectures,
or those who want to develop a deeper understanding of this
information without having to listen to three or four hours of
recorded material.
The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system
can be overwhelming and often frightening; and, like most fear, is
based on lack of understanding or knowledge. Those of us who have
chosen a path out of bondage and into liberty are faced, eventually,
with the seemingly tyrannical power of some governmental agency and
the mystifying and awesome power of the courts. We have been taught
that we must "get a good lawyer," but that is becoming increasingly
difficult, if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves from the
government, we find that the lawyers quickly take our money and then
tell us as the ship is sinking, "I can't help you with that -- I'm an
officer of the court."
Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a "snowball's
chance" is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME and to come to an
understanding of the true nature of the Law. The lawyers have
established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human
knowledge by implying that the subject is just too difficult for the
average person to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary
out of English words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at
times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp
-- are lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe?
Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against the
government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers
learn about procedure, not about law. Mr. Freeman admits that he is
not a lawyer, and as such, he has a way of explaining law to us that
puts it well within our reach. Consider also that the framers of the
Constitution wrote in language simple enough that the people could
understand specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted.
So again we find, as in many other areas of life, that "THE BUCK
STOPS HERE!" It is we who must take the responsibility for finding
and putting to good use the TRUTH. It is we who must claim and
defend our God-given rights and our freedom from those who would take
them from us. It is we who must protect ourselves, our families and
our posterity from the inevitable intrusion into our lives by those
who live parasitically off the labor, skill and talents of others.
To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful explanation
of our plight and a peaceful method of dealing with it. Please take
note that this lecture represents one chapter in the book of his
understanding, which he is always refining, expanding, improving. It
is, as all bits of wisdom are, a point of departure from which to
begin our own journey into understanding, that we all might be able
to pass on to others: greater knowledge and hope, and to God: the
gift of lives lived in peace, freedom and praise.
THE UCC CONNECTION
"I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves,
be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove."
INTRODUCTION
When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court decisions. If I had
tried to use these in court, I would have been convicted.
I was involved with a patriot group and I studied Supreme Court
cases. I concluded that the Supreme Court had declared that I was not
a person required to file an income tax -- that the tax was an excise
tax on privileges granted by government. So I quit filing and paying
income taxes, and it was not long before they came down on me with a
heavy hand. They issued a notice of deficiency, which had such a
fantastic sum on it that the biggest temptation was to go in with
their letter and say, "Where in the world did you ever get that
figure?" They claimed I owed them some $60,000. But even if I had
been paying taxes, I never had that much money, so how could I have
owed them that much?
NEVER ARGUE THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCY
Fortunately, I had been given just a little bit of information:
NEVER ARGUE THE FACTS IN A TAX CASE. If you're not required to file,
what do you care whether they say you owe sixty dollars or 60,000
dollars. If you are not required to file, the amount doesn't matter.
Don't argue the amount -- that is a fact issue. In most instances,
when you get a Notice of Deficiency, it is usually for some fantastic
amount. The IRS wants you to run in and argue about the amount. The
minute you say "I don't owe that much", you have agreed that you owe
them something, and you have given them jurisdiction. Just don't be
shocked at the amount of a Notice of Deficiency, even if it is ten
million dollars! If the law says that you are not required to file
or pay tax, the amount doesn't matter.
By arguing the amount, they will just say that you must go to
tax court and decide what the amount is to be. By the time you get
to tax court, the law issues are all decided. You are only there to
decide how much you owe. They will not listen to arguments of law.
So I went to see the agent and told him that I wasn't required
to file.
He said, "You are required to file, Mr. Freeman." But I had
all these Supreme Court cases, and I started reading them to him. He
said, "I don't know anything about law, Mr. Freeman, but the Code
says that you are required to file, and you're going to pay that
amount or you're going to go to tax court." I thought that someone
there ought to know something about law, so I asked to talk to his
superior. I went to him and got out my Supreme Court Cases, and he
wouldn't listen to them. "I don't know anything about law, Mr.
Freeman..." Finally I got to the Problems Resolution Officer, and he
said the same thing. He said that the only person above him was the
District Director. So I went to see him. By the time I got to his
office, they had phoned ahead, and his secretary said he was out.
But I heard someone in his office, and I knew he was in there.
I went down the elevator, around the corner to the Federal
Building and into Senator Simpson's office. There was a girl sitting
there at a desk, and she asked if she could help me. I told her my
problem. I said that I really thought the District Director was up
there. I asked her to call the IRS and tell them that it was Senator
Simpson's office calling and to ask if the District Director was in.
I said, "If you get him on the phone, tell him that you are from the
Senator's office and you have a person who you are sending over to
speak to him -- if he can wait just five minutes." It worked. He
was there, and I ran back up to his office. His secretary met me
when I came in and said, "Mr. Freeman, you're so lucky -- the
Director just arrived."
The Director was very nice and offered me coffee and cookies and
we sat and talked. So he asked me what I wanted to talk to him
about. (If you ever have someone say to you, "I'm from the
government and I'm here to do you a favor", watch out! -- but we can
turn that around and approach them the same way.) So I said, "I
thought you ought to know that there are agents working for you who
are writing letters over your name that you wouldn't agree with. Do
you read all the mail that goes out of this office over your
signature?" The Director said, "Oh, I couldn't read everything --it
goes out of here by the bagful." That was what I thought. I said,
"There are some of your agents writing letters which contradict the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. And they're not
doing it over their name, they're doing it over YOUR name."
He was very interested to hear about it and asked if I had any
examples. I just happened to have some with me, so I got them out
and presented them to him. He thought it was very interesting and
asked if I could leave this information with him, which I did. He
said he would look it over and contact me in three days. Three days
later he called me up and said, "I'm sure, Mr. Freeman, that you will
be glad to know that your Notice of Deficiency has been withdrawn.
We've determined that you're not a person required to file. Your
file is closed and you will hear no more from us." I haven't heard
another word from them since. That was in 1980, and I haven't filed
since 1969.
THE SUPREME COURT ON TRIAL
I thought sure I had the answer, but when a friend got charged
with Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked me to help him.
I told him that they have to prove that he willfully failed to file,
and I suggested that he should put me on the witness stand. He
should ask me if I spoke at a certain time and place in Scott's
Bluff, and did I see him in the audience. He should then ask me what
I spoke of that day. When I got on the stand, I brought out all of
the Supreme Court cases I had used with the District Director. I
thought I would be lucky to get a sentence or two out before the
judge cut me off, but I was reading whole paragraphs -- and the judge
didn't stop me. I read one and then another, and so on. And
finally, when I had read just about as much as I thought I should,
the judge called a recess of the court. I told Bob I thought we had
it made. There was just no way that they could rule against him
after all that testimony. So we relaxed.
The prosecution presented its case and he decided to rest his
defense on my testimony, which showed that he was not required to
file, and that the Supreme Court had upheld this position. The
prosecution then presented its closing statements and we were just
sure that he had won. But at the very end, the judge spoke to the
jury and told them, "You will decide the facts of this case and I
will give you the law. The law required this man to file an Income
Tax form; you decide whether or not he filed it." What a shock! The
jury convicted him. Later some members of the jury said, "What could
we do? The man had admitted that he had not filed the form, so we
had to convict him."
As soon as the trial was over I went around to the judge's
office and he was just coming in through his back door. I said,
"Judge, by what authority do you overturn the standing decisions of
the United States Supreme Court. You sat on the bench while I read
that case law. Now how do you, a District Court Judge, have the
authority to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court?" He says, "Oh,
those were old decisions." I said, "Those are standing decisions.
They have never been overturned. I don't care how old they are; you
have no right to overturn a standing decision of the United States
Supreme Court in a District Court."
PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY
He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and
I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and
I don't honor those decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He
said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law;
since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The
charge that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public Policy Statute,
not Public Law, and those Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public
Policy." I asked him what happened in 1938. He said that he had
already told me too much -- he wasn't going to tell me any more.
1938 AND THE ERIE RAILROAD
Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of
the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also
the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the
Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie Railroad for damages
when he was struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked
along beside the tracks. The district court had decided on the basis
of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law; that this man was not
under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no
standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged
and he would have had the right to sue.
This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years.
\fniselectw Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the
decision of the Supreme Court was that in any case of this type, the
court would judge the case on the Common Law of the state where the
incident occurred -- in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie
Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be
judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more
decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. So here we
find the blending of Law with Equity.
This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I
determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts
and not Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the
puzzle missing.
A FRIEND IN THE COURT
Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't make
friends with a judge if you go into court like a "wolf in black sheep
country." You must approach him as though you are the sheep and he
is the wolf. If you go into court as a wolf, you make demands and
tell the judge what the law is --how he had better uphold the law or
else. Remember the verse: I send you out as sheep in wolf country;
be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. We have to go into court
and be wise and harmless, and not make demands. We must play a
little dumb and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of
questions and boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give
me a victory or admit what they didn't want to admit. I won the
case, and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office to get
some papers. One of the judges stopped and said, "You're an
interesting man, Mr. Freemen. If you're ever in town, stop by, and
if I'm not sitting on a case, we will visit."
AMERICA IS BANKRUPT
Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem
with the Supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than
Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges, the top
attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting
and this is what we were told:
America is a bankrupt nation -- it is owned completely by its
creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive,
they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments.
Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly.
Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction --call it
anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.
ADMIRALTY COURTS
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that
your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from
your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court
which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract
in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have
admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can
demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are
supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed
into evidence.
No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a
valid international maritime contract that has been breached.
So you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I never knew
that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I
deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking
jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so
that I may challenge the validity of the contract." What they would
have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have
to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and
that we are their slaves...
NOT EXPEDIENT
But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time to admit
that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the
world. The reason they don't want to tell everyone that they own
everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns.
There are uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until
they can gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD ARMY and all
courts into a single WORLD COURT, it is not expedient to admit the
jurisdiction the courts are operating under. When we understand these
things, we realize that there are certain secrets they don't want to
admit, and we can use this to our benefit.
JURISDICTION
The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of
jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:
Common Law
Common Law is based on God's Law. Anytime someone is charged
under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free
under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not
infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have
a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on
the life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does
not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making
a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over state lines in
most states, you will see a sign which says, "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS
-- IT'S THE LAW." This cannot be Common Law, because who would you
injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled
performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any
violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.
Equity Law
Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to
perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So,
if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract
somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the
obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action --
not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried
criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a
contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court,
you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal
action. Are our seatbelt laws Equity laws? No, they are not,
because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the
letter of a contract.
Admiralty/Maritime Law
This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also
has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the
contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we
can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (and all traffic laws,
building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are under. Whenever
there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to
file), that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid
international contract in force.
However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating
under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the International
Law or Law of Merchants and adopted it into our codes. That is what
the Supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case -- that the
decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it
will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were
instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it
Statutory Jurisdiction.
Jacob Conner
On 7 Jan 1997 mweis...@aol.com wrote:
> I have just one more question to pose before the world:
>
> "Who will protect us from our 'protectors'? "
>
You are supposed to
i am supposed to
and I will
Its our responsibilities.
Iris Heather Hoggatt
>>lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>>
>>>contracts.
>>>A reservation shall be made sufficient by stating or signing
"Without
>>>Prejudice", or "Under Protest".
>>
some
>>effort.
>>
>>Bass Pig
>
>
>One of the ways you can prove you have reserved your rights under
>UCC 1-207 , is to write "without prejudice UCC 1-207" under your
>signature on your Driver License. BUT, when I did this on mine
>( state of Florida ) I was surprised to see that laser printed version
>of the license contained only my signature, and no phrase ! When I
>asked the issuing goon behind the counter about this, I was just
>told to "move along" and not ask questions.
>
>Apparently the fraud goes all the way down to the local level. I know
>that somewhere in all the additional paperwork that went with the
>issue of my license, the phrase appears. Whatcha wanna bet that if
>I needed that info, it couldn't be found !!
>
>Just beware that the local level commies dont want you to reserve any
of
>your rights either......
>
>Craven
>102.1FM
>Temple Terrace Community Radio
>http://www.ldbrewer.com/pirate.html
>ldbr...@flanet.com
>
The animals... I burned mine in with a solder iron. hehehe
But, I don't have one anymore, so......
B.J.
mweis...@aol.com
In article <5b1pur$m...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
> THE SUPREME COURT ON TRIAL
This part was interesting to me, even though I have no hobby interest in
"law" pe se. Very powerful concept in the article, and shocking
conclusions!
Bass Pig
-=Tony=-
In <32D347...@concentric.net> "Steve J. Quest"
Yah, there are a lot of pluses and minuses in every nation. I did
think you'd might gravitate to the Netherlands (Holland) because of
the exceptionally liberal drug laws.
But, look at the recent proclamations there _almost_ admitting that
the social experiment has been a gross failure. It seems they can no
longer take the leeches draining on civic welfare. The tightening-up
...is now in progress.
Despite its warts, don't you really think that our system (U.S.)
is the best for common folk?
-=T=-
mweis...@aol.com
In article <5b2r64$q...@lana.zippo.com>, Craven @ 102.1 writes:
>One of the ways you can prove you have reserved your rights under
>UCC 1-207 , is to write "without prejudice UCC 1-207" under your
>signature on your Driver License. BUT, when I did this on mine
>( state of Florida ) I was surprised to see that laser printed version
>of the license contained only my signature, and no phrase ! When I
>asked the issuing goon behind the counter about this, I was just
>told to "move along" and not ask questions.
>
>Apparently the fraud goes all the way down to the local level. I know
>that somewhere in all the additional paperwork that went with the
>issue of my license, the phrase appears. Whatcha wanna bet that if
>I needed that info, it couldn't be found !!
>
>Just beware that the local level commies dont want you to reserve any of
>your rights either......
Very interesting observation. The bottom line is, we cannot trust ANY
government entity on ANY level of jurisdiction, be it federal, state or
local. Citizen beware!
Bass Pig
mweis...@aol.com
In article <5b3aj2$7...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>The fed has three main phone centers scattered around the globe, and a
>host of smaller ones. They intercept transmissions of all phone calls
>and can keep the input for up to 6 months without a court order. Here's
>a note you may find of interest, Colorado is not really a state. It
>achieved de-facto statehood by ex-post-facto law issued by the Congress
>of DC, which is forbidden by the Constitution. Ohio is another.
That's worse than a "roving wiretap" that Bill Clinton is proposing. So
all this talk is moot. It's already being done. I can't imagine the
storage capacity for the billions of conversations that go on in that
period of time.
I think there are some secret enclaves of free people living without the
government's knowledge, in the territory known as Colorado. Odd that they
would choose such a place to live, or perhaps logical?
Bass Pig
mweis...@aol.com
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.97010...@world.evansville.net>,
Jacob Conner <ja...@evansville.net> writes:
>You are supposed to
>i am supposed to
>and I will
>
>Its our responsibilities.
Ever vigilantly!
Bass Pig
-=Tony=-
>>Best regards,
> U-2
>>Bass Pig
>
>Hope you enjoyed. REALLY hope it pissed off Tony.
Not at all. Heather and disciples are just another falsehood
of B.J. Sorry for you, whomever, for not having the sensisibilities
for facing up to realities of the real world around you.
The saying goes "never grewed-up" <G> (Backwoods talk ...better
than a lot here).
Bye
-=Tony=-
In <19970107204...@ladder01.news.aol.com> mweis...@aol.com
writes:
>I have just one more question to pose before the world:
>
>"Who will protect us from our 'protectors'? "
Well, geez ...that's pretty obvious. <G> The protectors of the
"protectors", of course. Wonder who they are"? ...don't we all?
Steve J. Quest
-=Tony=- wrote:
>
> In <32D347...@concentric.net> "Steve J. Quest"
> <Squ...@concentric.net> writes:
> >
> > I haven't decided yet. Some countries have some features I like,
> >while others have distictly other features which I like
> (aforementioned
> >meaning POLITICAL and LEGAL features which I like). However, some
> > It may end up being the Netherlands. The parent company to a
> >company I am engineering group leader for (by proxy) is headquartered
> >in The Netherlands.
>
> Yah, there are a lot of pluses and minuses in every nation. I did
> think you'd might gravitate to the Netherlands (Holland) because of
> the exceptionally liberal drug laws.
>
> But, look at the recent proclamations there _almost_ admitting that
> the social experiment has been a gross failure. It seems they can no
> longer take the leeches draining on civic welfare. The tightening-up
> ...is now in progress.
>
> Despite its warts, don't you really think that our system (U.S.)
> is the best for common folk?
>
> -=T=-
In a word, NO! I just want to be able to be free, without worry
as to if the cops spot me or not (I unluckily fit the "drug-courier
profile" and am thus constantly hassled). I will no give up.........sq
-=Tony=-
In <32D339...@concentric.net> "Steve J. Quest"
<Squ...@concentric.net> writes:
>-=Tony=- wrote:
>>
>> This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>> sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
mind?
>>
>> Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never signed),
>> he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>
>or self-generated fog" in every one of your posts. Now I am going
>to have to insist. ! Please refraign from using any one phrase to
>death, you seem like you could be creative, try something else......sq
Like I said in the just prior ...don't even try to sandbag me!
-=T=-
Steve J. Quest
Iris Heather Hoggatt wrote:
>
> In <32D344...@concentric.net> "Steve J. Quest"
> <Squ...@concentric.net> writes:
> >
> > Let's get one thing straight. The Civil War was not a war about
> >slavery, it was about the Federalists (the ones who wanted a FEDERAL
> >government, which we now have unfortunately) and the Confederates,
> >con = against, federalism.
> >
> > As we all know, the Confederates lost, therefore we are all
> >property of the winner, we are all prisoners of war, and forced to
> >bend to the will of our masters. I'm sorry, but that's what happens
> >when you are a victim of a war, and we are all victims of the Civil
> >war, a war where the ENEMY won!
> >
> > So instead of arguing old laws that don't mean anything to the
> >people in power (old confederate and pre-federalism documents, like
> the
> >constitution and the bill of rights) get organized, form a militia,
> and
> >get ready to go to bloody civil war. About 11 years ago, I predicted
> >that this country would enter into a second Civil War, what I refered
> >to as Civil War II. It will happen folks, sooner or later, it will
> >happen. Most of the fighting will NOT be by the submissive "sheeple",
> >but will be performed by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, who came here to find
> >freedom, but alas, they were more free under a dictatorship! THEY
> will
> >help to free this land, and I will be standing by their
> side.........sq
>
> Get Down, Brother!
>
> I tried to keep it as short as possible. If I had expounded further on
> the subject of the Civil war 1, it probably would have consumed several
> hours, and excesive bandwidth.
>
> Oh well...
>
> B.J.
Please do elaborate on what I have started. Some of us here, who
by their silence are not known _are_ reading what you have to say, and
do agree with it. With your help, we _can_ wake up the sheeple, and
take back MORE than just the airwaves! We can take back our liberties,
and our lives from the slaveholders in washington! I no longer wish to
be an enslaved prisoner of war, I wish to be FREE...................sq
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <32D6ED...@concentric.net> "Steve J. Quest"
I'll have to get back to ya on this. Have a time factor at the moment.
I promise to get back!
B.J.
-=Tony=-
In <5b163r$8...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> ch...@nospam.zxcvbnm.com (Chuck
Adams) writes:
>
>> But, everyone is entitled to his own self-made fog. Right? <G>
>
>Tony, meet Steve Winter. Steve Winter, meet Tony.
>
>
Nice terse statement. But, what does it mean?
-=T=-
-=Tony=-
In <5b11um$s...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>
>In <5avm4u$i...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>writes: >>>In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
>>>anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>>>>writes from the inner depths of rectumville:
>>>>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
>>>mind? Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never
>signed), he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
>>>>>) writes:>Get the gripe off of your peanut sized stiffy you brain
>>>>>dead idiot. READ THE STATUTES!They only apply to U.S. citizens who
>>>>>are "RESIDENTS" of the federal areas. Eat your own defication and
>>>>>expire, you supporter of the communist democracy!
>
>>>>B.J.
>
>>
>> This item already received privately from either Iris Heather
>>Hoggatt or B.J., the claimed "common law" lawyer who prefers to be
>>publicly anonymous. Why to me, I dunno.
>>
>> It's just more wild-assed, wild-eyed propaganda. All too common
>on
>>the Internet.
>>
>> I did read an interesting article today: Internet, the new
global
>>village of village idiots. Sorta fits, eh wot?
>>
>> -=Tony=-
>>
>>ps: the entirety repeated out of courtesy to whomever wrote the item
>>and carefully right-justified all lines "for public comsumption".
:-)
>>It's still ALL propaganda of the first order.
>>
>
>As a representing "Agent" of your government, the burden of proof
still
>rests upon you to dis-prove otherwise. We have seen NO SUCH dis-proof.
>Only worn out phraseology and limp-wristed rhetoric. And as far as
>being what you call private messages, You must really be exquistitly
>ignorant! Anything posted thru telephone lines in America (notice I
>included all three United States of America's)is recorded in Boulder,
>The Corporate State of Colorado. Get off your dead asshole and do some
years
>of court cases prior to the implimintation of Admiralty jurisdiction
>wrong. If you can remember (I doubt it though), you asked for info
from
>"Readers not in the USA"). Recall? It may help for you to pull your
>head back out into the sunshine instead of your best friend between
>your asscheecks!
>
>
>SIGNED... Citizen Burton James, Sui-Juris, Sua Proteste Esse, In law,
>at common-law
Aye, aye exalted, SIR!
-=T=-
-=Tony=-
In <5b1nda$n...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>
>In <5b1c0j$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> nlnr1...@juno.com(Citizen
>Burton James, Sui-Juris ) writes:
>>
>>I looked up U.C.C. 1-207 on the Internet, but found a number of
sites
>>mentioning it, but not the statute or code itself. I'd like to read a
>copy
>>of it. Presently, it is nearly impossible for me to find work, and I
>would
>>imagine that the filter of having to deal with these special
>requirements
>>as a sovereign Citizen would further limit the number of potential
>>empoyers who'd want to bother hiring me. Most businesses are afraid
of
>>"rocking the boat" and placing themselves in jeopardy for hiring
>anyone
>>who's contractual agreement is contraversial. How do you work around
>that?
>>What kinds of jobs (other than migratory day labor) are available.
>
>If a company is worth working for, then they will hire you. If not,
>then
>they can be held liabil under Title 7, 42USC, for discrimination on
>the basis of National Origins, or religious beliefs. (SEE* the Taco
>Bell
>cases, or I can e-mail them to you) Sovereigns do need to be extra
>cautious
>though when pursuing a Title 42.
>
>>If you drive on the road without a license and registration, sooner
or
>>later, the police will pull you over. What do you tell them? How do
>you
>>avoid arrest?
>
>Sometimes it's unavoidable. However, you can take several approaches
to
>this
>one as well. One is complete silence. You may spend 72 hrs in jail.
>Never
>sign anything. But, in the end the judge will hang on a Title 18, and
>you will wind up with 60,000 or so frn's. Another approach is if you
>need
>a license to "operate" in a class C situation, such as transportation
>for
>hire, is to stamp the reservation of rights above your sig on your
next
>
>license. Better yet, is to turn in the license, and revoke the
>instrument
>that bears your power of attorney, that grants them authority over
you,
>then take all the tests over again. When it comes to putting your
>John Hancock to any paperwork, make sure to stamp above your sig the
>reservation of rights. (I burned mine in with a solder iron), then
when
>the
>time came to revoke my power of attorney, I never renewed.
>
>>What about liability? You're on a public highway and you MUST show
>>financial responsibility in the event the 3,000lb killing machine we
>call
>>a car goes out of control and injures another party. How does one
>remain
>>accountable without a licence and registration?
>
>Karl Granse from Minnesota Republic recomends taking out a personal
>liability form of insurance. Most sovereigns either are more cautious
>or put the vehicle into a foreign trust, then insure with the trust.
>
>>>Would you provide some insight into how sovereign citizens live and
>>work and earn and spend in this society?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>My station is the majority of my work, now especially since the
courts
>>in this area have been leaving us alone. The majority of those state
>>(C)itizens that I know, are in Free Enterprise, which is not the same
>>as the Capitalist system of enterprise. We use silver and gold
eagles,
>>which are still being minted by the Treasury Dept.
>
>>We do not have true Capitalism in the US anymore. It is a mixed
>economy of
>>Socialism mixed with overtones of Free Enterprise. Capitalism, per
se,
>is
>>not bad. But the type of "Capitalism" practiced today is distorted by
>the
>>monetary depreciation of our currency, which has lost over 95% of its
>>buying power since 1933. This fosters an "I don't care" attitude in
>>industry, and the downhill slide to ruthless, dog-eat-dog dirty
>dealings
>>is begun.
>>The average merchant today has never seen real currency. How do you
>pay
>>for a meal at a restaurant? Doesn't it tire you to have to explain
>this to
>>EVERY merchant you come in contact with? Perhaps I'm missing some
>point
>>here which nullifies all these concerns, but at my current perception
>of
>>the situation, it sounds like there are many obstacles to the normal
>>commercial freedoms we enjoy as Federal (c)itizens.
>
>Actually the Free enterprise system is still in good working order.
>I could spend hours on this subject alone. I would like to send you a
>tape of one of my associates giving a seminar on Free enterprise and
>setting up a foreign trust. They normally charge for it, but for
>you it be a freebee. I have a fair amount of material that I would
like
>
>to send you, as it would consume more space than this server can
handle
>in
>this forum.
>
>>Furthermore, I forgot to mention that many of these "contracts" are
>not on
>>the same paper we are signing, which also makes them invalid. When
you
>>sign a bank signature card, you are unknowingly being "bound" to the
>terms
>>of volumes of IRS code that are NOT stated on that form you just
>signed.
>>I'd like to know more about U.C.C. 1-207.
>
>With 55,000 some odd pages in banking regs alone, it's hard to grasp
>the
>full implications of them.
>
>>There are many technicalities behind a lot of cases, but I like to
>fight
>>for rights on fundamental levels, not eek by on incidental
>technicalities
>>that still leave me open to prosecution on the main charges at some
>later
>>date.
>
>Sure. I can understand that one. That's why we try to keep it as
simple
>as possible and cover all your bases the first time. The last thing to
>take care of is the IRS. We notify everyone from the Sec of State in
>D.C. to the county auditor where you live.
>
>Your input has shed some new insight on these issues and is
appreciated
>by
>this Individual.
>
>Bass Pig
>
>
>Signed(by demand of PhonyTony) Citizen Burton James, Sui-Juris,
>Sua-proteste Esse, in law, at common-law.
>
>P.S. more posts follow.
Guffaws! I see we another "authentic" Judge now spewing. <G>
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5bd2cl$f...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-) writes:
>
>In <5b163r$8...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> ch...@nospam.zxcvbnm.com
(Chuck
>Adams) writes:
>>
>>
>>Tony, meet Steve Winter. Steve Winter, meet Tony.
>>
>>
>
> Nice terse statement. But, what does it mean?
>
> -=T=-
Whoa?!? Tony doesn't know something? How strange!
B.J.
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5bd4mf$i...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
writes:
>
>In <5b11um$s...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
>Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>>
>>In <5avm4u$i...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
>anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>>writes: >>>In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
>>>>anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>>>>>writes from the inner depths of rectumville:
>>>>>>This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS! The
>>>>>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the twisted
>>>>mind? Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never
>>signed), he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
Aye, Aye? Navy huh? Long nights at sea with "all the boys"?
B.J.
-=Tony=-
OK, Steve ...I grant you total freedom! <G>
Be real! The only rights we peons have are those that granted to
usn's by the Constitution, Bill of Rights and others specific by the
Legislature and the Courts. Most all comes to us by the princples long
ago established by the Magna Carta.
We all are slaves to the "system" for which we vote. The one that
Society as a whole expects .....civilized and civil. You want to
change that? If so, offer a better model and not just "woa is me"
talk. Then go for it politically! Just spouting-off from the hip
or groin or loins cuts no fish or even bait.
It's summed up best with: Grow up to reality!
-=T=-
-=Tony=-
In <5b73lm$d...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>
>> Please do elaborate on what I have started. Some of us here, who
>>by their silence are not known _are_ reading what you have to say,
and
>>do agree with it. With your help, we _can_ wake up the sheeple, and
>>take back MORE than just the airwaves! We can take back our
>liberties,
>>and our lives from the slaveholders in washington! I no longer wish
>to
>>be an enslaved prisoner of war, I wish to be
FREE...................sq
>
>I promise to get back!
>
>B.J.
B.J.! You have yet another address and personna? Are you
evading something?
Ya know, fraudulent persons do abound but they usually try to
take our hard-earned dollars from us!
Your fraud ...is what? Legal personna?
-=T=-
-=Tony=-
In <32D6FF...@concentric.net> "Steve J. Quest"
<Squ...@concentric.net> writes:
>
>-=Tony=- wrote:
>>
>> In <32D347...@concentric.net> "Steve J. Quest"
UNLUCKILY??? It's the one you picked, eh? And you FIGHT it?
Any rational person would make adjustments, no?
-=T=-
-=Tony=-
In <5bi3jd$p...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>
>In <5bfla9$3...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
>"legislated creation of your Congress". You are under the "Legal
system
>of statutory regulation, Not I. Statutory regulation is "after the
>fact", not the fact itself. There are no statutory regulations to
>Constitutional common-law. And, I have no need for your "Federal
>Reserve notes" that you believe are dollars.
>
>Lawful Pro-per!
>
>Citizen Burton James Sui-juris... Same old address. You may need a
>seeing eye dog.
S'cuse me while I vomit. Acccch. Bye
Iris Heather Hoggatt
>OK, Tony, Since you know it all, help me to understand a few things...
>
>1).37 Million State Citizens/American Nationals are ALL wrong, and
Tony
>is the only one that is right?
>
>2).State Citizens/American Nationals are not Citizens in law, at
>common-law as the Founding Fathers of America had intended?
>
>3).Message headers that contain my wifes name (since it's her account)
>are automatically posted on the message, and that makes me a dual
name,
>dual personality?
>
>4).My seven years of law studies are all a waste, because Tony has all
>the answers?
>
>5). Tony is not a representing agent of a foreign principle, even
>though Tony has accepted all the contracts with juristic benefits of
>the corporate state? And is liabile under those contracts of
>compilance?
>
>6). How do we know for sure that Tony isn't really spelled "Toni"?
>
>Once again, since you are a representing agent of a foreign principle,
>by law, The burden of proof is on you. I fully expect a series of
>answers in return, based on "lack of knowledge", "lack of experience"
>and "lack of intellect".
>
>
>NOTICE*>>> SIGNATURE>> (C)itizen Burton James, Sui-Juris.
-=Tony=-
In <5bdqi6$h...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>
>In <5bd4mf$i...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>writes:
>>
More B.J. blah the blah the blah. Symptomatic of a blithering
idiot. He sure is "cute" ...to other idiots.
-=T=-
-=Tony=-
In <5bdq19$h...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>
>In <5bd2cl$f...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
>anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-) writes:
>>
>>In <5b163r$8...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> ch...@nospam.zxcvbnm.com
>(Chuck
>>Adams) writes:
>>>
<G>
>>>
>>>Tony, meet Steve Winter. Steve Winter, meet Tony.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nice terse statement. But, what does it mean?
>>
>> -=T=-
>
>Whoa?!? Tony doesn't know something? How strange!
>
>B.J.
Ha,ha,ha and belly chuckles! Wonderful expose of yourself.
-=T=-
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5bl1qc$4...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-) writes:
>
>In <5bi3jd$p...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
>Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>>
>>In <5bfla9$3...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
>>anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-) writes:
>>>
B.J.
Iris Heather Hoggatt
In <5bkokm$e...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-) writes:
>
>In <5bdqi6$h...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> lab...@ix.netcom.com(Iris
>Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>>
>>In <5bd4mf$i...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
>anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>>writes:
>>>
>>>Heather Hoggatt ) writes:
>>>>
>>>>In <5avm4u$i...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
>>>anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>>>>writes: >>>In <5aqh9o$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
>>>>>>anth...@ix.netcom.com(-=Tony=-)
>>>>>>>writes from the inner depths of rectumville:
>>>>>>>>This feller, gal or in-between has gone completely BONKERS!
The
>>>>>>>>sig says "B.J." but who "in-the-hell knows", besides the
twisted
>>>>>>mind? Based on a couple of private messages exchanged (never
>>>>signed), he/she is living in a self-made dream world.
><G>
You're the only "IDIOT" that gets off!
B.J.