| PAYMENT INQUIRY LETTER" |
| This letter is provided as an example of how to respond to a demand from a public servant to pay a sum of money. It points out the conflicts created by deliberately defying the Constitutional requirement that all money must be gold and silver, and puts the recipient into such a bind that they often will drop their collection efforts entirely. In order for them to respond and provide you the information you need to pay them, they will have to admit they are violating the law. |
April
15th, in the year of our Lord 2006
Secretary of
State <<Name of Recipient>>
Elections Division
101 N. Carson Street, Suite 3
Carson City,
Nevada 89701
VIA email and first class mail
FROM: <<Your
Full Name>>
<<Your Address>>
<<Your State>>, Nevada <<Your Zip>>
RE: Harassment and Conspiracy to Deprive Rights,
Request for Waiver, Demand for Administrative Hearing and Definitions of Terms,
Words and Phrases; and a Filing of a Petition for a Declaratory
Order and/or Advisory Opinion
Secretary
<<Name of Recipient>>,
Teddy Roosevelt said:
“When those who are responsible for the Leadership of State, begin to move in villainous ways, when they begin to destroy the fabric of what it is that our Nation is held together with; when they violate the Constitution of Our Nation and begin to do things that are false to our dream and our hopes----IT IS INCUMBENT UPON EVERY CITIZEN BY RIGHT, BUT ALSO BY RESPONSIBILITY, TO CHALLENGE THAT ADMINISTRATION, TO RAISE THEIR VOICE IN VIGOROUS DISSENT AND TO CHANGE THE WAY IN WHICH THE STATE IS DOING BUSINESS.....AND THOSE WHO FAIL TO DO THAT, SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH PATRIOTIC TREASON! I am hopeful that on my epitaph it will say: ‘He cannot be charged with Patriotic Treason.’”
I believe that you have, for over the last 8 years, moved in
villainous ways to destroy the fabric of our Nation, violated my rights and both
the Nevada and federal Constitutions and have done things that are false to our
hopes and dreams as Nevadans. I believe you are guilty of “Patriotic Treason.”
That being said I must remind you that you and I and several others are currently in federal
court due to your many and continuing violations of my rights and the rights of
others. I have discussed your letter of April 6, 2006, which is a continuation
of the violation of my rights and a new but continued harassment, with my
attorney and we will be including it as evidence in our lawsuit against you.
Your timing in this matter seems to be intentional as the Independent American
Party is just preparing to have its State convention and select its 2006 AD
slate of candidates. I believe that your action against me concerning the 2004
AD Financial Disclosure Statement is an attempt to intimidate me and keep me
from running for office in 2006 AD and to inhibit my political speech. If not
then why did you wait to contact me about this issue until 2006 AD, 16 months
after the election was over? Were you negligent, grossly negligent or
just involved in a criminal conspiracy to steal my rights? It had to one of those three as 16 months does not
allow an opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner.” That is a violation of my due process rights but then that is nothing
new concerning the past acts of your office and the Independent American Party
and its members. That is, of course, why we are already in federal court suing
you.
Petition for
Administrative Hearing
Concerning
Request for Waiver and Other Matters
It appears that
you, Secretary of State Heller, are required by NRS
233B.120 to
“provide by regulation for the filing and prompt disposition of
petitions for declaratory orders and advisory opinions as to the applicability
of any statutory provision, agency regulation or decision of the
agency.”
NRS 233B.120
Petitions for declaratory orders and
advisory opinions; disposition. Each agency shall provide by
regulation for the
filing and prompt disposition of
petitions for
declaratory orders and advisory opinions as to the applicability of any
statutory provision, agency regulation or decision of the agency. Declaratory
orders disposing of petitions in such cases shall have the same status as agency
decisions. A copy of the declaratory order or advisory opinion shall be mailed
to the petitioner.
It appears that according to NRS
233B.031 that you are an
“agency” because according to NRS 281.005 you are a “Public officer.”
NRS 233B.031 “Agency” defined. “Agency” means an agency, bureau, board, commission, department, division, officer or employee of the Executive Department of the State Government authorized by law to make regulations or to determine contested cases.
NRS 281.005
“Public officer” and “special use
vehicle” defined. As used in this
chapter:
Except as limited for the purposes of NRS
281.411 to 281.581, inclusive, “public officer” means a person elected or
appointed to a position which:
Is established by the Constitution or a
statute of this State, or by a charter or ordinance of a political subdivision
of this State; and
Involves the
continuous exercise, as part of the regular and permanent administration of the
government, of a public power, trust or duty.
In Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 66, 99 S.Ct. 2642, 1979. The court was clear:
As the District Court found, the consequences to a
trainer of even a temporary suspension can be severe; and we have held that the
opportunity to be heard must be "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner." Armstrong v. Manzo,
380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1192, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). Here, the
provision for an administrative hearing, neither on its face nor as applied in
this case, assured a prompt proceeding and prompt
disposition of the
outstanding issues…
You, Secretary of State Heller, have already violated the prompt proceeding and prompt disposition of this case and failed miserably or intentionally to give me the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner" but I must still try to exhaust my administrative remedies. I am, therefore, demanding an administrative hearing under the already written regulations (I must presume they are already written since it appears to be a requirement of law, even though I could not find them) for such a hearing as required by NRS 233B.120 “Each agency shall provide by regulation for the filing and prompt disposition of…”
Please contact me to set up such a hearing where I can have a
hearing "at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner." Even though that seems impossible since the election of 2004
AD is long gone and the whole reason for the, “Ethics in Government Law, [was] to promote the integrity and
impartiality of public officers through disclosure of potential conflicts of
interest.” That is impossible now because you waited so long. But then you had
to wait until after the election was over because the Nevada Supreme Court did
not CHANGE THE RULES you are trying to enforce until December of 2004 AD, now
did they?
It appears that an administrative
hearing is a requirement of law and that if you fail or failed to follow it it
would be a violation of a State Secured Liberty Interest and become a Federal
issue if you decided not to waive the civil penalty.
To be clear I am demanding a fair
and impartial administrative hearing as per NRS
233B.120.
You, <<Name of Recipient>>, should waive the civil penalty as I was only following Judge <<Judge Name>>’s determination concerning requirements on the filing of the disclosure statement. The Nevada Supreme Court in Nevada Com'n on Ethics v. Ballard, 102 P.3d 544 Nev.,2004, states:
“The district court concluded that the Commission's authority was limited to reviewing the filings for timeliness, and that any authority to determine the adequacy of a filing would need to be granted by the Nevada Legislature. Consequently, the district court ruled that the Commission could not fine any respondent who timely filed a ‘financial disclosure document.’”
You note in your letter that I submitted to your office on “May 19, 2004” a Nevada Financial Disclosure Statement. The Nevada Supreme Court Ruling was on December 17th, 2004 AD, seven (7) months after I filed. On May 19th 2004 AD, I was not required to do anything but file (even a blank) Financial Disclosure Statement because at that time “the Commission's authority was limited to reviewing the filings for timeliness, and that any authority to determine the adequacy of a filing would need to be granted by the Nevada Legislature.” That was the law at the time I filed the form. I was only following those judicial instructions in good faith. How could I have willfully failed to file timely with the information you say I had to include when the District Court ruled I did not have to give you any information at all? I had to have acted willfully or I did nothing wrong. Maybe you should have read the statue on this and figure out the time frame of the court rulings before you violated my rights AGAIN!
NRS 281.581
Civil penalty for failure to disclose:
Procedure; amount; waiver.
1. If the Secretary of State
receives information that a candidate for public office or public officer
willfully fails to file his statement of financial disclosure
or willfully fails to file his statement of financial disclosure in a timely
manner pursuant to NRS 281.559 or 281.561, the Secretary of State may, after
giving notice to that person or entity, cause the appropriate proceedings to be
instituted in the First Judicial District Court.
2. Except as otherwise provided in
this section, a candidate for public office or public officer who
willfully fails to file his statement of financial
disclosure or willfully
fails to file his statement of financial disclosure in a timely manner pursuant
to NRS 281.559 or 281.561 is subject to a civil penalty and payment of court
costs and attorney’s fees…
5. As used in this
section, “willfully” means deliberately, intentionally and
knowingly.
What part of the word
“willful” do you not understand?
I KNEW ON MAY
19th, 2004 THAT I WAS FOLLOWING THE DISTRICT COURT’S
RULING SO HOW COULD I deliberately, intentionally and knowingly violate the
statue?
And what information that I, <<Your Full Name>>, a candidate
for public office willfully failed to file my statement did you receive as
required by the statute?
Also: What good does it do to file a financial disclosure statement two years after I already lost the election since the Supreme Court of Nevada said that:
“Ethics in Government Law, [was] to promote the integrity and impartiality of public officers through disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.”
What are the “potential
conflicts of interest” in 2006 AD for a person that is not a public officer
because he lost the election in 2004 AD? The facts are that you, <<Name of
Recipient>>,
are demanding I give you this information without any reason except to harass me
and violate my privacy and my rights and harm the Independent American Party of
Nevada.
You did nothing about the felon Erin
Kenny and her crew of bribe takers here in <<Your City's Name>> concerning their false
financial disclosure statements and yet you take the time to come after
un-elected non-major party candidate. This is just more evidence that the law is
worthless except to place a damper on the freedoms of minor party candidates and
you are using unequal enforcement AGAIN. Is someone paying you off in lap
dances to harass the IAP? Or is this just pure unadulterated
vindictiveness?
It is obvious that you have waited until April 6th in the year of our Lord 2006 to send me and other Independent Americans these letters instead of doing so in a non-political year. This is just more proof that you are once again attempting to use the financial disclosure statutes in a manner that has had a chilling effect on the First Amendment Rights of Independent Americans. You have known about the filings since May of 2004 AD and knew about the Supreme Court ruling since December of 2004 AD and yet you waited until the IAP was recruiting candidates and preparing for our County, State and National Conventions in 2006 AD to harass us and take up our limited and precious time in an obvious attempt to harm us politically. As was stated by the court in U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 C.A.Fla. 1970.
“Silence can only be equated
with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry
left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See also United States
v. Sclafani, 265 F.2d 408 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 360 U.S. 918, 79 S.Ct. 1436, 3
L.Ed.2d 1534 (1959); c.f., Avery v. Clearly, 132 U.S. 604, 10 S.Ct. 220, 33
L.Ed. 469 (1890); Atilus v. United States, 406 F.2d 694, 698 (5th Cir. 1969);
American Nat'l Ins. Co., etc. v. Murray, 383 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1967); United
States v Tweel, 550 F2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977).
We, Independent Americans, have claimed in the past that you have used these so-called laws to harm the Independent American Party. The timing of this latest assault is just more proof that you are a Fascist tyrant with a political agenda and intended to harm me and the Independent American Party.
The Nevada Supreme Court
in Nevada Com'n on Ethics v. Ballard, 102 P.3d 544 Nev.,2004 stated:
Second, respondents offered no evidence below to show that
the financial disclosure statutes had a chilling effect on the exercise of any
First Amendment rights. [FN19] Consequently, we do not reach the
issue.
FN19. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." U.S. Const. amend. I.
We were never offered the
opportunity to show that the financial disclosure statutes had a chilling effect
on the exercise of any First Amendment rights as the hearing was not a normal
hearing but one only to determine if the Nevada Commission on Ethics had the
right to investigate the information on the forms. Maybe this time around I
shall have such an opportunity since the Nevada Supreme Court did not allow me
to speak in front of them since I was only a common man beneath their
self-appointed greatness and not represented by an
attorney.
I am suing you in federal court
right now for deprivation of my rights and I am now claiming that you are
attempting to use the financial disclosure statutes in a manner that has had a
chilling effect on my First Amendment Rights and many other rights. The Nevada
Supreme Court stated that they “do not reach the issue” so it is still a legal
question that must be judicially resolved. How can I file a financial disclosure
statement when such issues have not yet been resolved?
You correctly claim that I
indicated that I would not be giving any financial information because
Judge <<Judge Name>> informed me that I was not
required to give you any financial information and at the time that was the law and I followed it. THAT IS
NOT A WILLFUL VIOLATION. It was and is a good faith belief. I had the
right to believe the ruling by Judge <<Judge
Name>> was correct and that I had no legal duty to do anything except file a
timely form without any information upon it at all if that is what I chose to
do. By following Judge Maddox’s ruling it was IMPOSSIBLE for me to act willfully
as defined in NRS 281.581 “As
used in this section, “willfully” means deliberately, intentionally and
knowingly.” How could I have possibly known that Judge Maddox’s ruling would be
overturned AFTER the election of 2004 AD?
You have
now waited until the political season to harass me, which is an obvious attempt
to harm my political speech, etc. Why, <<Name of Recipient>>, did you not contact me in
2005 AD? Anyone with a conscience and a brain knows why. It is obvious that you
waited to do this intentionally in the most critical month of any election year
for our political party.
The Nevada Supreme Court
in Nevada Com'n on Ethics v. Ballard, 102 P.3d 544 Nev.,2004 stated:
“The
notices were nearly identical to each other, asserting that the Commission is
‘violative of unalienable God given rights’ and part of a conspiracy to
‘establish a Civil Religion.’ The notices also provided various commentary upon
or questions regarding the statutorily required information. For instance, the
notices stated that only gold or silver is ‘income,’ and that the signatory
respondent had no income to report because he or she had received no gold or
silver. The notices also asked the Commission to define the symbol ‘$,’ to
indicate whether real property ‘under the control of the Federal government’ is
‘under the jurisdiction of the State of Nevada,’ and to indicate whether the
form's reference to ‘this state’ is to ‘Nevada, a state of the union or the
corporate STATE OF NEVADA?”
The Court, however, failed to answer those questions to the
leaders of the Independent American Party (as has your office and the Ethics
Commission) or any other questions except the possibility that the statute was
not void for vagueness. WHY will you not answer the questions? Is it because if
you do it will prove that State is violating our rights and the Constitutions of
both Nevada and the federal government? I think so.
We also find it interesting that Judge <<Judge Name>> could not understand the statute (I must presume that the Judge <<Judge Name>> was a man without or lacking common intelligence since he disagreed with the Supreme Court) but that somehow non-lawyer Independent American Party candidates should have been able to understand it in advance of the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the ruling we were relying upon. This just shows that the Nevada Supreme Court is as much a part of the establishment of this new civil religion as your office is. It is evidence of an attempt to harm my religious beliefs, and establish your anti-Christ church, “whatever they may be called, or in whatever form they may adopt” EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947); ROSENBERGER v. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, ___ U.S. ___ (1995); TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961); TILTON v. RICHARDSON, 403 U.S. 672 (1971); GRAND RAPIDS SCHOOL DISTRICT v. BALL, 473 U.S. 373 (1985); BOARD OF EDUCATION v. ALLEN, 392 U.S. 236 (1968); MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION , 333 U.S. 203 (1948). Hitler established the Church of the Reich to replace all other churches and destroy religious liberty. You appear to be much like him.
I will remind you that on October 31, Nevada Day, in the year of our Lord 2002 in the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada concerning Dzul v. State the OPINION by the Court, was written by Justice BECKER, and states:
“The Fifth Amendment has long been interpreted to mean that a defendant may refuse “to answer official questions put to him in any proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.” A defendant therefore retains his Fifth Amendment rights …
“A state may not impose substantial penalties on a person who decides to invoke his right against self-incrimination.”
I have been informed by Federal Justice Department of Justice attorney, Mr. Peluso, that if a witness signed a form under penalties of perjury and did not know it to be true and correct that he had committed perjury. My attorneys, <<Your Attorney 1's Name>> and <<Your Attorney 2's Name>>, agreed with Mr. Peluso that if a person did not know that the statements he signed were true and correct and/or did not absolutely believe they were true and correct, that the signer of the document was indeed committing perjury.
The bottom of the Nevada Financial Disclosure Statement states that the information I have provided herein is accurate and complete. It is my understanding that although it is not under the penalties of perjury that there are still possible criminal penalties for knowingly filing a false report with the government.
I have asked you many questions as the Chairman of the Independent American Party, as a representative of the IAP and personally and you have refused time and again to tell me the meaning of the words of art on your forms. Since I have been informed by a lawyer and representative of the Federal Justice Department and my own attorneys that if I sign a form not knowing it is correct or apparently “accurate and complete” that it is perjury, or in this case filing a false report, then it is impossible to sign your form without the words in question defined as I do not know that any answer I give is true and correct.
The most important issue is that the United States of America currently has a duo-monetary system along with non-monetary debt notes. As of 1988 AD the federal government has been coining gold and silver with face value dollar amounts that cost many more Federal Reserve Notes than are on the face value of these private bank paper debt notes. Here are examples of these REAL “$” money coins.
The following standards of weights and measures for gold and silver coin minted by the United States are from the government web sites:
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/american_eagles/index.cfm?action=American_Eagle_Silver_Proof
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/american_eagles/index.cfm?action=American_Eagle_Gold_Proof
“The American Eagle Silver Proof
Coin contains 99.9% silver. The one ounce coin has a $1 face value
and is 1.598 inches in diameter, contains 0.999 silver troy ounces and
weighs 1.0000 troy ounces.”
All American Eagle Gold Proof Coins are
legal-tender and contain 91.67% (22 kt) gold. The gold weight, and
diameter will vary with each coin denomination, as specified below. Each
coin is backed by the U.S. Government for weight and
content.
In Article I, Section. 10. of the United States of American Constitution it proclaims: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
So if “No State shall… make any
Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” and such coins are
currently available, then, since these coins have $50 face value, $25
face value, $10 face value, $5 face value, and $1 face value what is a “$”
if not the standards established by these coins? A Federal Reserve Note is not
gold or silver coin. Currently a United States $1 face value silver coin can be
exchanged for approximately 14 single denomination Federal Reserve Notes.
Since I am aware of the value discrepancy between the $1 silver coin and
the $1 Federal Reserve Paper non-redeemable debt note I cannot sign a form that
does not declare what is meant by the “$” sign. So if I answer your first
question about annual Compensation is that for Federal Reserve Notes which are
not Constitutional dollars of gold or silver Coin in
Tender of a Payment of Debts or do I figure the amount in silver and gold coins?
And if it is to be calculated in bank notes how is the State of Nevada doing so
as they are Constitutionally limited from making Federal Reserve Notes a payment
in tender of debt since silver and gold coins of specified $ amounts are
currently available? As I do not know for sure, if I answer the questions you
ask without defining the word or symbols myself I could be either committing
perjury or filing a false report since I do not know for sure what the $ sign
means on your form.
This is an important because of
the “$” limitations on election contributions found in
NRS 294A.100 which if
violated can be a felony and reads:
NRS 294A.100
Limit on amount that may be contributed
to or accepted by candidate; penalty.
1. A person shall not make a
contribution or contributions to a candidate for any office, except a federal
office, in an amount which exceeds $5,000 for the primary election or
primary city election, regardless of the number of candidates for the office,
and $5,000 for the general election or general city election, regardless
of the number of candidates for the office, during the
period:
3. A person who willfully violates
any provision of this section is guilty of a category E felony and shall be
punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
So if I
receive $5000.00 in $50 face value 1.287 inches in diameter, one gold
troy ounce coins that currently can be exchanged for around 700 single
denomination Federal Reserve notes that would mean that $5000.00 face value
donation in gold maybe a 70,000 Federal Reserve Bank Note donation. So how do I
report it accurately since, “No State shall… make any
Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts?”
The Bible warns us against such devaluation of money with
unfair weights and measures.
Deut. 25: 13 ¶ Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers
weights, a great and a small.
14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a
great and a small.
15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect
and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land
which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
16 For all that do such things, and all that do
unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
How can I have a single $ that is worth $14 and not have a
great and a small diverse measure?
How can I have a gold or silver dollar and a paper “dollar”
that are of diverse value and not be an abomination unto my
Lord?
How can the State of Nevada require me to be an abomination
unto the Lord when they are required by law to have a perfect toleration of my
religious sentiment?
The scripture above is not an isolated scripture for the
scriptures warn us again and again to reject diverse weights and
measures.
Prov. 20: 10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of
them are alike abomination to the LORD.
Lev. 19: 35 ¶ Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment,
in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.
36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just
hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of
Egypt.
37 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my
judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.
To have different meanings for a dollar ($) is having a
divers (diverse) weight and divers (diverse) measure and is, according to the
Bible an abomination to the Lord.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah
Webster, 1828
DI'VERS, a. s as z. [French divers; Latin diversus, from diverto; di, dis, and verto, to turn.]
Thou shalt not sow thy fields with divers seeds.
Deuteronomy 22.
Nor let thy cattle gender with divers kinds. Leviticus
19.
[This is now generally written
diverse.]
Several; sundry;
more than one, but not a great number. We have divers examples of this
kind.
[This word is not obsolete even in common discourse, and is
much used in law-proceedings.]
The Federal Reserve Bank Notes are “Different; various”
from the face value silver and gold coins minted since 1988 AD by the United
States Mint. This is an abomination before the Lord if they are to be considered
one in the same. A Federal Reserve Note “dollar” will not buy the same amount of
political advertising as a United States silver dollar minted since 1988 AD and
yet the “standard for the value of a dollar MUST be judged by the gold and
silver standard in a State as per the Constitution.
Therefore because such diverse weights and measures is both an abomination to the Lord and a violation of the Constitution to have a standard of Weights and Measures (see Article I, Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;) I must presume that a $ is a gold or silver $ as per the face value on the coins. If I receive no gold or silver $s then I receive no $s at all.
As you appear to have difficulty defining or understanding the meaning of words in the United States Constitution I feel it once again necessary to define a word using the definition of the time the Constitution was written so that you can understand the meaning:
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828
STAND'ARD, noun [Italian stendardo; French etendard; Spanish estandarte; Dutch standaard; German standarte; stand and ard, sort, kind.]
1. …
2. That which is established by sovereign power as a rule or measure by which others are to be adjusted. Thus the Winchester bushel is the standard of measures in Great Britain, and is adopted in the U. States as their standard. So of weights and of long measure.
3.
…
4.
In coinage, the proportion of weight of fine
metal and alloy established by authority. The coins of England and of the United
States are of nearly the same standard.
That means that a Federal Reserve Notes must be “adjusted”
to the value of gold and silver coin as to the meaning of the “$” sign and as to
the meaning of the word dollar and not the other way around.
Therefore, I believe that the Federal Reserve System is a part of an invidious and/or covert act by congress that has been assisted by the judicial and executive branches of government and the State governments to establish a civil/civic/secular anti-Christ religion which:
1. Is in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and state secured liberty interests and that your actions have been invidious and/or covert concerning my religion and/or beliefs and/or has suppressed and/or supported or advanced a particular religion (religion includes religions defined and/or included in TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) @ [Footnote 11] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47;
2. That has created a danger of religious and political censorship;
3. That these so-called laws have placed a direct condition and/or burden on the dissemination of religious views;
4. That has attempted to affirmatively compel us, by threat of sanctions, to refrain from religiously motivated activities;
5. That has attempted to affirmatively compel me, by threat of sanctions, such as the threats of civil penalties to engage in conduct that I find objectionable for religious reasons and therefore violate my rights;
6. That the governments have established and are enforcing an anti-Christ Civil/Civic/Secular religion with these attempts to bypass Constitutional limitations upon the States and support these civil religious activities and institutions, “whatever they may be called, or in whatever form they may adopt” EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947); ROSENBERGER v. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, ___ U.S. ___ (1995); TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961); TILTON v. RICHARDSON, 403 U.S. 672 (1971); GRAND RAPIDS SCHOOL DISTRICT v. BALL, 473 U.S. 373 (1985); BOARD OF EDUCATION v. ALLEN, 392 U.S. 236 (1968); MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION , 333 U.S. 203 (1948);
7. That you have selected one group or one type of religion “whatever it may be called, or in whatever form it may adopt” for preferred treatment;
I believe that trying to force me by threats of civil penalties to join in the abomination of unequal weights and measures is an attempt to force me to join in your civil/secular/civic religion of Corporatism established to enslave Americans in an anti-Christ Satanic religion. I believe you have been seduced into aiding and abetting in the plans of Gadianton as in Hel. 6: 38 “And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.” I am therefore not required to assist in the destruction of my own religious beliefs just so I may run for office and the State of Nevada is required by law to have a “perfect toleration of my religious sentiment.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828
PER'FECT, adjective [Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete; per and facio, to do or make through, to carry to the end.]
1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828
TOLERA'TION, noun [Latin toleratio.]
The act of tolerating; the allowance of that which is not wholly approved; appropriately, the allowance of religious opinions and modes of worship in a state, when contrary to or different from those of the established church or belief. Toleration implies a right in the sovereign to control men in their opinions and worship, or it implies the actual exercise of power in such control. Where no power exists or none is assumed to establish a creed and a mode of worship, there can be no toleration, in the strict sense of the word, for one religious denomination has as good a right as another to the free enjoyment of its creed and worship.
This means, Secretary of
State Heller, that it is you, not I, that am not in compliance with the law in
Nevada.
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their doctrine on the United States Constitution is clear and is partially found at:
D&C 98: 5 And that law of the land
which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining
rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before
me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you,
and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the
constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man,
whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
I therefore cannot follow unconstitutional laws. It is my understanding it is my duty to refuse to follow them and that they are not really law at all.
“All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void... We are in conscience bound to disobey.” –Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772)
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution
are null and void.” –Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176,
(1803)
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights;
it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in
legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –Norton
vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
–Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491
You ask what is the general sources of income for me and my household. The United States Supreme Court defined income as “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined arising from corporate activities, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.”
I do not think I have any income according to that definition but what happens to me if I do and report it wrong? Will I be accused of a crime? If so do I not have the right not to possibly incriminate myself?
I cannot tell you the sources of the income from my family members as they have refused to give me such information. What do I do in that case? How can I force my household to give me information they refuse to give?
You ask me to list each creditor that I have that owes $5,000
or more. If I owe it is that a debt? If it is a debt and “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a
Tender in Payment of Debts…” then you must mean in gold or silver coin at face
value? Or does it mean something else and if it does mean something else please
explain how it can since Nevada is not Constitutionally allowed to make any
Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of
Debts?
I do not think I have any such debts but what happens to me
if I do and report it wrong? Will I be accused of a crime? If so do I not
have the right not to possibly incriminate myself?
What does the “market value, which is $2,500 or more” mean? Does it mean calculated in face value gold and/or silver coin or something the State is not allowed to make in payment in tender of debt like Federal Reserve Notes?
What is the “aggregate value of $200?” You have refuse to define what a “$” is. The Nevada Supreme Court refused to define what a “$” is even though they commented upon the question about what a “$” is.” By the Standard of Weights and Measures I can only calculate a dollar to be the face value on a gold or silver coin minted since 1988 AD. If that is in error then explain to me how it is Constitutionally possible to have two separate standards for the same word “dollar” or symbol ($.) And include how having such a diverse standard grant me a perfect toleration of my religious sentiment concerning weights and measures?
I am in a dilemma.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828
DILEM'MA, noun [Greek, a syllogism which strikes on each side; and, an assumption, from, to take.]
1. In logic, an argument equally conclusive by contrary suppositions.
2.
A difficult or doubtful choice; a state of
things in which evils or obstacles present themselves on every side, and
it is difficult to determine what course to pursue.
I do not have the answers from the State of Nevada (specifically your office) to these questions and many more. I have, however, been informed by a federal prosecutor for the Department of Justice and my own attorneys that if I answer a question and say it is true that I have committed a crime unless I know it is true. So I will fill out your form but I MUST use following definitions of the words you used in the form. If these definitions are wrong then correct me within ten business days of receipt of this email/letter or I must consider them as correct by your lack of rebuttal. As was stated by the court in U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 C.A.Fla. 1970:
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. (See also United States v. Sclafani, 265 F.2d 408 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 360 U.S. 918, 79 S.Ct. 1436, 3 L.Ed.2d 1534 (1959); c.f., Avery v. Clearly, 132 U.S. 604, 10 S.Ct. 220, 33 L.Ed. 469 (1890); Atilus v. United States, 406 F.2d 694, 698 (5th Cir. 1969); American Nat'l Ins. Co., etc. v. Murray, 383 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1967); United States v Tweel, 550 F2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977).
The ONLY way the form is accurate and complete is according to the definitions I have used here and using a Standard weight and measure given by the United States Mint concerning what a dollar ($) is.
“$” will be defined as a
gold or silver coin minted since 1988 AD by the United States Mint which value
is determined by the their face value as follows:
The word “income” will be
defined as:
“[G]ain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined arising from corporate activities, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.” (See Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 41 S.Ct. 386, U.S. 1921)
The word “resident” as
used on your financial disclosure form and on all election and voting documents
in the past and future pertaining to me will be defined
as:
A “citizen” or “citizen resident” of
Nevada which is different than just a resident as it does not in any way
diminish my rights as a Sovereign citizen of Nevada and by virtue of that
Citizenship a Citizen of these United States of America and in no way makes me a
United States territorial citizen or resident or 14th Amendment type
citizen. All my rights as a citizen are reserved at all times and no rights are
waived at any time. It means I am not a merely a “resident,” which would
diminish my rights as many laws apply specifically to residents but not to
citizens or citizen residents. It means I am a citizen or citizen residents with
all unalienable rights reserved. I ran for the office of State Assembly in 2004
AD and the State of Nevada did not challenge my qualifications, which included
being a “citizen resident” as per NRS 218.010:
NRS 218.010
Qualifications of
Senators and Assemblymen. No person is eligible to the office of
state Senator or Assemblyman who:
1.
Is not a qualified elector and who has
not been an actual, as opposed to constructive, citizen resident of this
State for 1 year next preceding his election.
There must be a difference between a
resident and a native born citizen of Nevada as noted in Article 1, Sec: 16.
Rights of foreigners. [Repealed in
1924.] which stated:
The original section read: “Foreigners
who are, or who may hereafter become Bona-fide residents of this State,
shall enjoy the same rights, in respect to the possession, enjoyment and
inheritance of property, as native born citizens.” [Sec. 16 of the
original constitution was repealed by vote of the people at the 1924 general
election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1921, p. 416; Statutes of Nevada 1923, p.
407.]
Since this Section was repealed and there
is no definition in the Nevada Revised Statutes or the Nevada Constitution of a
Nevada citizen what are the rights of a “Bona-fide resident of this State NOW
compared to those of a native born citizen since this Section of the
constitution has been repealed? Are they different? Since the rights of a “Bona
fide resident” are now obviously less than a “native born citizen” on the
specific rights once protected by the Nevada constitution and to the best of my
knowledge I am a native born citizen of Nevada then if I claim to be only a mere
resident do I lose any rights?
In State v. Preble, 18 Nev. 251, 2 P.
754, Nev. 1884 the Nevada Supreme Court declared:
“It is not within the power of the
legislature of this state to limit the right to possess, inherit, or enjoy such
property to aliens who may become citizens. State v. Rogers, 13 Cal. 160;
McConville v. Howell, 17 Fed. Rep. 104.”
It is, therefore, clear that a resident
of this state is not necessarily a citizen.
As I am unsure I cannot file a form
stating that I am a mere “resident” if that would diminish my rights without
defining the word in a way the protects my rights instead of possibly
diminishing my rights for the maxims of law are clear
that:
Quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit, non
intelligitur damnum sentire. He who suffers a damage by his own fault, has no
right to complain. Dig. 50, 17, 203.
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus serviunt
leges. The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. 2
Bouv. Inst. n. 2327.
The Nevada Constitution also confirms the phrase “citizen resident” in Article 5, Sec. 3.
Eligibility; qualifications; number of
terms. No
person shall be eligible to the Office of Governor, who is not a qualified
elector, and who, at the time of such election, has not attained the age of
twenty five years; and who shall not have been a citizen resident of this
State for two years next preceding the election; nor shall any person be
elected to the Office of Governor more than twice; and no person who has held
the Office of Governor, or acted as Governor for more than two years of a term
to which some other person was elected Governor shall be elected to the Office
of Governor more than once.
It is also appropriate to note that the
rights of Liberty of speech and the press and the right to keep and bear arms is
given only specifically to citizens and does not include merely Bona fide
residents
Sec: 9. Liberty of speech and the press. Every
citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all
subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be
passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all
criminal prosecutions and civil actions for libels, the truth may be given in
evidence to the Jury; and if it shall appear to the Jury that the matter charged
as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable
ends, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated.
Sec. 11. Right
to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.
1.
Every citizen has the right to
keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
use and for other lawful purposes.
Whereas Sec: 12., applies to an
owner of private house which does not need to be a
resident nor a citizen:
Sec: 12. Quartering
soldier in private house. No soldier shall, in time of Peace be
quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of
War, except in the manner to be prescribed by law.
In Sec. 8., you need only be a “person”
to have the guarantees of this section:
Sec. 8. Rights of
accused in criminal prosecutions; jeopardy; rights of victims of crime; due
process of law; eminent domain.
1. No person shall be tried for a capital or other infamous
crime…
In Vaile v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court
ex rel. County of Clark, 2002, 44 P.3d 506, 118 Nev. 262, rehearing denied,
certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 1483, 538 U.S. 906, 155 L.Ed.2d 225. The court
defined "Residence," as requirement for jurisdiction in a divorce action,
encompasses not simply an intent to reside in Nevada for an indefinite period of
time, but actual, physical presence in the state for six weeks prior to
the filing of the complaint for divorce.
Six weeks of residence does not appear to
make a person a citizen or a resident citizen but only a resident with limited
rights and privileges as a mere “resident” cannot become the governor nor a
member of the Nevada Legislature as that is restricted to “citizen
residents.”
It is
clear that a person need not even specifically be a citizen of Nevada to
vote a Article 2. Section 1. states:
“Right to vote; qualifications of
elector; qualifications of nonelector to vote for President and Vice President
of United States. All
citizens of the United States (not laboring under the disabilities named
in this constitution) of the age of eighteen years and upwards, who shall
have actually, and not constructively, resided in the state six
months…”
Whereas one must be a citizen resident of
Nevada as per Article 5,
Sec. 3. to become the governor of this state.
The Nevada Supreme Court was clear that
each word has meaning and no part [word] of the law should be rendered nugatory
in Rodgers v. Rodgers, 110 Nev. 1370, 1373, 887 P.2d 269,
Nev.,1994.
"[N]o part of a statute should be
rendered nugatory, nor any language turned to mere surplusage, if such
consequences can properly be avoided."
Therefore I am not a mere resident but a
native born citizen of Nevada with all the rights of a native born citizen
therefore I will not claim or agree to being only a “resident” as defined by
Vaile v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex
rel. County of Clark, 2002, 44 P.3d 506, 118 Nev. 262, therefore the words “resident” must, in
this form, mean citizen and or “resident citizen” or it would deprive me of my
rights without due process of law.
This is notice to you and is to be
considered as notice to all employees and officers of the State of Nevada and
its subdivisions such as County Clerks and Registrars of Voters of the
definition of “resident” on all election forms and will stand as the true and
correct definition concerning my status unless rebutted in a timely and complete
manner. If you consider my status as a Nevada citizen to be incorrect and
believe me to be a mere “resident” then this letter is to be considered as a
filing of a petition for a declaratory order and/or an advisory opinion, as per
NRS
233B.120, concerning the applicability of statutory
provisions, agency regulations or decisions of your agency concerning the
questions of my Nevada citizenship or mere resident status. Failure to have a
hearing where I have an opportunity to be
heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner" on this issue will allow
me to have a good faith belief that the State of Nevada has accepted my position
that I am a citizen of Nevada and not a mere “resident” and therefore not under
the limitations placed upon mere residents.
Economic gain will be
defined as:
An
increase in combined total of tangible and intangible personal and real property
(including time expended on labor) judged in dollars by the standards of gold or
silver coin minted since
1988 AD by the United States Mint at their face value (as listed above) as
derived from capital,
from labor, or from both combined arising from corporate activities,
provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or
conversion of capital assets.” Gain, therefore does not include an
exchange of property for property of equal value (including time) but an
increase above the value arising from corporate activities. (See
Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 41 S.Ct. 386, U.S.
1921) (See also: .”
Slaughter-House case, 111 U.S. 746, 4 S.Ct. 652, U.S. 1884) “It has been
well said that ‘the property which every man has in his own labor,
as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the
most sacred and inviolable
Taxable years
will
be defined as:
A
taxable year for the State of Nevada (not a federal taxable year) which is a
normal year starting on the first of January and ending on the thirty-first of
December under the calendar style known as the Gregorian
calendar.
Some
of my answers will be listed on the form and/or as attachments to the form but I
will also answer them here.
1.
Name:
A. <<Your Full Name>> never <<YOUR ALL CAPS FULL NAME>>
2.
Mailing address:
A. <<Your Address>>
3.
City, State, ZIP:
A. <<Your City>>, Nevada <<Your Zip>>
4.
Telephone:
A. Yes I have one
5.
Length of Citizenship in Nevada:
A. Over 45 years
6.
Length of residence in the district where
registered to vote (per NRS 281.571(1)(a))
NRS 281.571
Contents; distribution of forms; costs
related to production and distribution of forms.
1. Statements of financial
disclosure, as approved pursuant to NRS 281.541 or in such form as the
Commission otherwise prescribes, must contain the following information
concerning the candidate for public office or public
officer:
(a)
His length of residence in the State of
Nevada and the district in which he is registered to vote.
As the question is not the same as the
statute I will answer what the statute seems to ask and not what question 6 asks
as they are not the same.
Answer: I am not currently “in” the district in which I am registered to vote as I moved after the last election and have not, as yet, re-registered to vote.
7.
List all public offices for which this
financial disclosure statement is required (NRS 281.571, Subsection
1(g))
1. Statements of financial
disclosure, as approved pursuant to NRS 281.541 or in such form as the
Commission otherwise prescribes, must contain the following information
concerning the candidate for public office or public
officer:
(g) A list of all public offices
presently held by
him for which
this statement of financial disclosure is required.
Answer: NONE
8.
List all general sources of income for
you and members of your household over 18 years of age (NRS 281.571. Subsection
1(b)
1. Statements of financial
disclosure, as approved pursuant to NRS 281.541 or in such form as the
Commission otherwise prescribes, must contain the following information
concerning the candidate for public office or public
officer:
(b) Each source of his income, or that of any member of his household who is 18 years of age or older. No listing of individual clients, customers or patients is required, but if that is the case, a general source such as “professional services” must be disclosed.
Answer: NONE for me. I do not have nor can I obtain any information upon household members as they have refused to give me such information under oath.
9.
List Each Creditor NRS 281.571,
subsection 1(d)
1.
Statements of financial disclosure, as
approved pursuant to NRS 281.541 or in such form as the Commission otherwise
prescribes, must contain the following information concerning the candidate for
public office or public officer:
(d) The name of each
creditor to whom he or a member of his household owes $5,000 or more,
except for:
(1) A debt secured by a mortgage or deed
of trust of real property which is not required to be listed pursuant to
paragraph (c); and
(2) A debt for which a security interest
in a motor vehicle for personal use was retained by the
seller.
Answer: NONE
10.
List each business entity (i.e.
organization operated for economic gain) NRS 281.571, subsection
1(f)
1.
Statements of financial disclosure, as
approved pursuant to NRS 281.541 or in such form as the Commission otherwise
prescribes, must contain the following information concerning the candidate for
public office or public officer:
(f) A list of each business entity (i.e.
organization operated for economic gain)…
Answer: NONE
11.
List specific location and particular use
of all real estate… NRS 281.571 Subsection 1(c):
(c) A list of the specific location and
particular use of real estate, other than a personal
residence:
(1) In which he or a member of his
household has a legal or beneficial interest;
(2) Whose fair market value is $2,500 or more; and
(3) That is located in this State or an adjacent
state.
Answer: NONE
12.
List the identity of
donor and value of each gift NRS Subsection 281.571, Subsection 1
(e)
(e) If the candidate for public office or
public officer has received gifts in excess of an aggregate value of $200 from a
donor during the preceding taxable year, a list of all such gifts, including the
identity of the donor and value of each gift, except:
(1) A gift received from a person who is
related to the candidate for public office or public officer within the third
degree of consanguinity or affinity.
(2) Ceremonial gifts received for a birthday, wedding, anniversary, holiday or other ceremonial occasion if the donor does not have a substantial interest in the legislative, administrative or political action of the candidate for public office or public officer.
Answer: NONE
A few final
comments:
"A strict observation of the written laws
is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the
highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when
in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous
adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty,
property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing
the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810
AD
In other word, Secretary of State Heller,
I have a higher and even religious duty to ensure my self-preservation and to save my country
because it is endangered from tyrants like you. As you have REFUSED to answer
our legitimate questions about definition of words of art on these forms and
there are obvious reasons I believe your possible definitions may be an
invidious and/or covert attempt to have me voluntarily waive my rights I have
defined them using a dictionary, United States Supreme Court rulings and the
obvious meaning of words and phrases in Nevada and federal Constitutions as I
will not allow you to take my liberty and property. I guess I will see you in an
administrative hearing and/or in court or you could just do what is right and
follow the law as no act of mine was a willful violation. As I doubt you know
how to do what is right I expect you will reject my request for a waiver, but
hope springs eternal in the human breast.
I want to remind the Office of the
Secretary of State that in 1998 AD District Court Judge Porter admonished your
office for not answering questions sent to your office concerning the right to
register to vote by my son, <<Your Son's Name>>. Your office has never corrected this
problem of intentional fraud by silence and continues to side step the
difficult questions we need answers to.
At the bottom of your letter you wrote:
“Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please contact the
Elections Division at (775) 684-5705.” I had a question about the regulations on
administrative hearing for such issues so I called as requested. I was told
someone would contact me by phone. To the best of my knowledge I was never
contacted. But what is new.
Yours with all the respect due a
tyrant,
<<Your Full Name>>
cc: <<Other recipient>>, Esq., Senior Deputy
Attorney General
|
Last revision: April 28, 2006 10:41 AM |
| This private system is NOT subject to monitoring |