[Author#2]

I’d like to respond to fallacies in Mitchell’s reasoning:

1. 28 USC 3002(15)(2) is NOT the only authority for calling the “United States” a corporation. There are at least two others:

1.1 The U.S. Supreme Court identified ALL governments as corporations.

Quote:

“Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made. One universal rule of law protects persons and property. It is a fundamental principle of the common law of England, that the term freemen of the kingdom, includes ‘all persons,’ ecclesiastical and temporal, incorporate, politique or natural; it is a part of their magna charta (2 Inst. 4), and is incorporated into our institutions. The persons of the members of corporations are on the same footing of protection as other persons, and their corporate property secured by the same laws which protect that of individuals. 2 Inst. 46-7. ‘No man shall be taken,’ ‘no man shall be disseised,’ without due process of law, is a principle taken from magna charta, infused into all our state constitutions, and is made inviolable by the federal government, by the amendments to the constitution.”

[Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)]

1.2 Am.Jur 2d identifies the “United States” as a “foreign corporation” in relation to a state.

Quote:

“A federal corporation operating within a state is considered a domestic corporation rather than a foreign corporation. The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.“

[19 Corpus Juris Secundum, Corporations, §883]

2. Secondly, Mitchell identifes the “United States of America” as NOT being a corporation.

Quote:

There are quite a few “activists” running around the Internet claiming that the “United States” and the “United States of America” are both corporations. These claims are not correct, for the reasons already stated above.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees:

Quote:

As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally, but to the colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. Even before the Declaration, the colonies were a unit in foreign affairs, acting through a common agency-namely, the Continental Congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies.

[United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, 299 U.S. 304 (1936)]

3. We DO, however, agree with Mitchell that:

3.1 U.S. attorneys are NOT expressly authorized to file suit in the name of “United States of America”.

3.2 There ARE no “United States of America attorneys”.

[Author#2]

EDITORIAL: Another update from Lindsey Springer

__________

Here's an important update from Dad:

=====================================================

Lindsey Springer here thanking each of your for your continued prayers and support.

Due to the date the Government alleged the Secretary of the Treasury purportedly referred years 2000 to 2004 to the U.S. Attorney in Tulsa, dated June 3, 2005, and other evidence the purported Grand Jury referral occurred prior to October 6, 2004, I have filed a Bivens/Tort Type claim in the Northern District of Oklahoma. The reason why my lcaims exist is due ot the service of a search warrant at my home on September 16, 2005, showed the IRS was simultaneously doing, and continuing its “agency” investigation while simultaneously a Grand Jury was convened.

At first glance most might say there is nothing wrong. The IRS does that every day. Therein lies the problem. In oder to understand the problem you must have some basic facts about the IRS. Unlike numerous agencies of the United States, the IRS was created by an agency regulations. Google 26 CFR 601.101 and you will see it for your self. Since the beginning, the Supreme Court has uniquely described the tax laws, in administrative and enforcement, as solely the power Congress gave directly to the Secretary of the Treasury. Read U.S. v. LaSalle, 437 U.S. 298, 308 (1978) where the Surpeme Court said “the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue are charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Internal Revenue code.”

Ask yourself if Congress directed the Secretary to enforce the tax laws how does a person get indicted for a tax crime. The Fifth Amendment requires a grand jury to indict a person for an infamous crime. Infamous crime means with a possible minimum term of imprisonment of 6 months or more. So, how does a grand jury consider indicting a person for an alleged tax crime Congeress only “charged' the Secretary of the Treasury with the power to enforce?

In LaSalle, the Supreme Court said “the IRS cannot try its own prosecutions.” 437 U.S. at 312. The Supreme Court said “a referral to the Justice Department permits criminal litgation to proceed.” Id. at 312. Only by a referral to a U.S. Attorney allows a U.S. Attorney to take on the role of “enforcing” laws reated to internal revenue covered by the referral. The Supreme Court, by example, said ” the IRS, upon referral, loses it ability to compromise both the criminal and civil aspects of a fraud case.” 437 U.S. at 312. After referrral, the Department of Justice is the agency “authorized to settle”. Id. at 312. The only role thet IRS is to play after referral is “interagency cooperation.”

The Supreme Court, 5 years after LaSalle, said “Once a criminal referral has been made the Commissioner is under well known restraints.” Bedarco v. CIR, 464 U.S. 386, 399 (1983) The key word is “responsibility.” Donaldson v. U.S. 400, U.S. 517, 534 (1971). The IRS has civil and criminal divisions. The “LaSalle rule applies solely to the statutory scheme of teh internal revenue code in which the IRS's civil authority ceases…upon referral of a taxpayer's case…” SEC v. Dresser, 628 F. 2d 1368, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1980)(en banc) Even though the IRS has civil and criminal divisions, the IRS as an institution is completely civil in nature. Upon recommendation the Internal Revenue Code itself terminates the IRS's investigation authority on referral.” Linda Thompson v. Resolution Trust, 5 F.3d 1508, 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1993). After referral, the IRS as an institution is “inhibted.” U.S. v. Anaya, 815 F. 2d 1373, 1377 (10th Cir. 1987)

For many years, after referral, few knew to make objection. In order to understand what happens after referral, you need to understand grand jury. The grand jury is to remain a buffer or referree between the Government and the suspect. Stirone v. U.S. 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960). The grand jury's “most important function” is to “stand between the prosecuting authorities and the suspect as an unbiased valuator of evidence.” U.S. v. Claiburn, 765 F. 2d 784, 795 (1st Cir. 1988). The role of grand jury is “a principal tool of criminal accusation.” Anaya, 815 F. 2d at 1377. If the U.S. Attorney alligns a grand jury with a “case agent”, like a Special Agent, two problems immediately arise.

The grand jury gets the impression the Special Agent is its investigator and works for the Grand Jury. Anyone afflicted will notice on a grand jury supboena most witnesses are directed to turn over the information sought, in leu of appearance, to the named Special Agent. An IRS agent cannot take your liberty diretly but a Grand Jury indictment can have an immediate impact.

How then does a grand jury remain an unbiased arbitor of evidence it its “agent” is the evidence? It could not logically. Also, by being a Special Agent capacity the agent is in his official capacity with the responsibility of enforcing the tax law instead of a mere witness possessing evidence of some alleged offense. Remember, interagency cooperation is the only role the IRS as an institution it to play. Once a grand jury is authorized something else is simultaneously presumed. And that is the IRS as an institution is “inhibited.” There is no hybrid enforcement authority remaining with the IRS and U.S. Attorney at the same time. It would appear by the Tax Division representations this dual enforcement policy has been used for decades and most either did not know it or ignored it for fear in the private sector.

The ramnifications though are huge for a free people protected by the Constitution. Without a lawful referral all prosecutions are invalid. With referral, everything, and I mean everything, the IRS does in pursuit of enforcement of tax laws is unlawful. The Secretary is prohibited from using summons to broaden discovery for a U.S. Attorney after referral. U.S. v. Claes 747 F. 2d 491, 494 (8th Cir. 1984). The designation of “Special Agent” and “Revenue Agent” have little if any significant difference as far as referral is concerned. U.S. v. Garden, 607 F. 2d 61 (3rd Cir. 1979); citing LaSalle, and Donaldson.

The IRS cannot use the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to gather information for “some other law enforcement entity.” U.S. v. Rineheart, 539 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (N.5)(W.D. Ok. 2008) The Supreme Court explained the moment the referral, or institutional committment to prosecute has occurred, this line of demarcation is called a “prophylactic rule” preventing the U.S. Attorney from broadening criminal litigation discovery and to avoid infringing on the role of the grand jury. Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1378; citing LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 312. The IRS is forbidden from doing investigation for solely criminal prosecutions. Bialek v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1267, 1272 (10th Cir. 2008).

“The good faith standard will not permit the IRS to become an ifnormation gathering agency for other departments, including the Department of Justice…” LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 317 On September 16, 2005, 3 months after the June 3, 2005 purported letter of referral presented by the Tax Divsion in the case brought against me, my home was raided by 11 armed Special Agents claiming to be enforcing laws related to internal revenue under 26 U.S.C. 7608(:cool:(2005).

If the referral occurred on June 3, 2005, no 7608(:cool: authority or “responsibility” to enforce laws related to internal revenue remained with the IRS as an institution. Without a referral, the entire case brought against me (or anyone related to taxes) is void and violates several rules by the Supreme Court related to Grand Jury and Due Process. The Government's most recent claim is that the Institution of the IRS, both civil and criminal, can be used by the Grand Jury to assist the Grand Jury in enforcing tax laws.

Just ask this question. If the U.S. Attorney is using the function of a Grand Jury to enforce the tax law, and the IRS is an agency of the Grand Jury, then who stands between the prosecution and the accused? Exactly! No one. It should be clear that no autority existed as of September 16, 2005, for the IRS, if the June 3, 2005, referral theory is believed. If anyone reading this knows of anyone charged by Grand Jury Indictment for tax related offenses, even if they have served their time or remain in prison, they must do a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) to the IRS seeking the “referral” or “recommendation” from the Secretary or his delegate to the U.S. Attorney.

Without this referral or recommendation, the conviction, or if currently charged, the charges are void as their was or is absolutley no authority for the U.S. Attorney to present any claim to a Grand Jury and no authority for the District Court to stand in adjudication of the charges. The conviction is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

After the 10th Circuit gave qualified immunity to 11 Special Agents for the theft of $ 2,000 on September 16, 2005, I filed a damage and Bivens claim in the Federal Court. Thus far, one judge has recused and another has been assigned correctly. I sought in forma pauperis which means I cannot afford to pay the costs to bring the action and the District Court directed me to pay the filing fees.

I NEED YOUR HELP. If you could help me I would be forever greatful. I intend to adjudicate the principals of law and then show the type of grace and mercy a nation with God's blessing would show. To he who gives grace and mercy much grace and mercy shall he receive. We as a nation need the United States to give grace and mercy and not imprison everyone into their home or an actual prison. I realize some of you will need read over this letter as I expect the government will do the same. In the end, you will see my words are correct and truthful.

No other Federal Statutory scheme is like the tax laws and it is for this reason the referral or recommendation from the Secretary of the Treasury or his authorized delegate is mandatory. Otherwise, Congress has not authorized the U.S. Attorney or District Court with any authority to enforce laws related to internal revenue as those remain with the Secretary of the Treasury. I do realize my words expose many defects related to the enforcement and administration of the tax laws and that is what I have been called to do.

I am trying to help my Country but sometimes a person addicted to one thing it has been given for free or without authority will throw a fit at first when he finds out the thing is no longer his.

For those of you interested, read the recent Supreme Court's decision in Bond v. U.S. (decided June 16, 2011) as it explains in great detail how the United States is not enumerated with power to enforce laws it writes, inside a Sovereign State, when that State reserved its sovereign authority to police its own borders from within. It is a tremendous signal that the United States authority to make a crime out of doing nothing has lost its support in the halls of justice.

Thank you again for your support. The filing fee I need is $ 350.00 and the service fees will be around $ 400.00. Any help towards this will be greatly appreciated and I know you will receive blessings for it. Still doing the best I can do under the circumstances, I remain,

Lindsey Springer.

=====================================================

Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.

PayPal:

gnutella@mindspring.com or lindsey@mindspring.com.

Mailing address for donations or other inquiries:

Landon Springer (I can't cash checks made out to Lindsey)

5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135

Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):

Lindsey Springer, 02580-063

FCI Big Spring

1900 Simler Ave

Big Spring, TX 79720

Thanks,

Landon Springer

[Author#2]

Neo,

Here is what one reader sent regarding the Citizenship Diagrams you submitted. We didn't write this. Please consider these comments as a means to CONSTRUCTIVELY improve the document rather than a personal attack.

______________

You get an explanation and diagrams before you know what the purposes of the document is. The opening words that should start the document don't appear until page 7 “Are you a U.S. Citizen? “What's Really Being Asked? I'ts not what you think. So, you'd better follow along and read the following before you check the YES box!!! Here's the good news and why you should check NO.

I'd be drawn into that article. The issue is made to sound important and have important consequences for the reader if he just calls himself a citizen.

But, the author hits the reader with dry definitions from Blacks law dictionary before the reader FEELS a need for the infomation. Some questions need to get the reader ready for the four ways to become a citizen….”Are u a citizen of the United States? Yes he says to himself. Then the author needs to ask “Which United States?” Waddya mean theres only one United States. Then the author needs to ask “Did you know that there are three completely different United States recognized in our laws? What??? the reader asks…….etc. etc. Now his curiosity is high. It gets an A for academic excellence, but an ordinary American not smart enought to ask OB “Exactly what is it we can do when you say YES WE CAN?” must have the questions raised for him BY THE AUTHOR? And then the author can answer them. The tables are correct but need to be edited so that they are simple to read. Tables and charts organize information but should organize it for the reader.

The author has not clearly identified who he is writing for. My remarks are addressed to the guy sitting next to you on a bar stool. Start talking black's dictionary to him and he will take his brew and move off.

If the article is written for the few intellectual cherubim on fg it is excellent but becomes not an instrument of persuasion, but only a cheat sheet reviewing for them what they already know. And thanks for that. But it is the average joe who believes one political candidate is better than another and that the republicans are crapheads and OB is doing a good job who needs to be invited in his own language to consider these important issues.

[Author#2]

Here is the rule from the SCR website:

Quote:

Wisconsin Suprme Court

SCR 23.01 Definition of practice of law.

http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/scrule/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59974

The practice of law in Wisconsin is the application of legal principles and judgment with regard to the circumstances or objectives of another entity or person(s) where there is a client relationship of trust or reliance and which require the knowledge, judgment, and skill of a person trained as a lawyer. The practice of law includes but is not limited to:

(1) Giving advice or counsel to others as to their legal rights or the legal rights or responsibilities of others for fees or other consideration.

(2) Selection, drafting, or completion for another entity or person of legal documents or agreements which affect the legal rights of the other entity or person(s).

(3) Representation of another entity or person(s) in a court, or in a formal administrative adjudicative proceeding or other formal dispute resolution process or in an administrative adjudicative proceeding in which legal pleadings are filed or a record is established as the basis for judicial review.

(4) Negotiation of legal rights or responsibilities on behalf of another entity or person(s).

(5) Any other activity determined to be the practice of law by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

SCR 23.02 License required to practice law; use of titles.

(1) Right of a person to practice law in Wisconsin. A person who is duly licensed to practice law in this state by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and who is an active member of the State Bar of Wisconsin may practice law in Wisconsin. No person may engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin, or attempt to do so, or make a representation that he or she is authorized to do so, unless the person is currently licensed to practice law in Wisconsin by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and is an active member of the State Bar of Wisconsin.

(2) Exceptions and exclusions. A license to practice law and active membership in the State Bar of Wisconsin are not required for a person engaged in any of the following activities in Wisconsin, regardless of whether these activities constitute the practice of law:

(a) Practicing law pursuant to SCR 10.03(4) by a non-resident counsel or registered in-house counsel.

(b ) Serving as a courthouse facilitator pursuant to court rule.

(c ) Appearing in a representative capacity before an administrative tribunal or agency to the extent permitted by such tribunal or agency.

I guess that means it is now a sanctionable offense to:

1. Occupy a public office.

2. Represent a “taxpayer” public office in court.

3. Act as a “straw man”.

4. Make any legal determination necessary to execute the duties of the office associated with “taxpayer” status.

5. To act as a “lawyer”, because a private human being represents the “OFFICE” of lawyer, and all lawyers are “officers of the court”. The private human being isn't licensed. The OFFICE receives the license to practice law, and therefore is CREATED by the license.

Sounds like my kind of law! 😆 😆 😆

Some other observations about this scam:

1. The statute expressly exempts the following:

Quote:

A nonlawyer who is an employee, member, or officer of an entity or organization may represent such entity, organization or any corporate affiliate before an administrative tribunal or agency of the State of Wisconsin.

2. Those who frequent this website are NOT members of “the public”, but PRIVATE parties. All PUBLIC parties are public officers in the government. The ability to regulate PRIVATE conduct is repugnant to the constitution. See:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Sections 3 through 3.3

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

3. The rule expressly exempts “non-resident” counsel. Everyone in this ministy and every member is non-resident and a nonresident alien.

4. The rule also exempts the sale of legal forms. This would also have to include forms provided for FREE on this website and the SEDM sister site.

5. The rule also exempts law student training. That is the purpose of this entire website.

6. The rule is void for vagueness, because it does not define “practice of law”. It says what it is NOT, but not what it IS. This is the same SCAM that the I.R.C. uses with the term “nonresident alien”: They define what it ISN'T, but not what it IS.

[Author#2]

Kingstle has a pending criminal suit. And this case is some form of an interlocutory appeal or a de novo suit.

I have no idea.

Kinstle v. State, Case No. 3:11CV25. (Dist.Ct., Ohio)(1/13/2011) — Footnote #1: (“Petitioner asserts, for example, that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act has not been followed, that the Allen County Court of Common Pleas claims it is an Admiralty Court, and that he is not a corporation.”)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14450516180989292081&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=2,9&as_vis=1&oi=scholaralrt&ct=alrt&cd=0

[Author#2]

TSA Enhanced Screening Procedures Explained

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXDLQPfqc04&feature=related

[Author#2]

Here is the SC ruling on patting people down. You can see that Janet Napolitano and her hired pervs have gone way beyond this. It's called a Terry Stop or, the second stage is called a stop and frisk….In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[2] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[3] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”.[4] When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk”.

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.[5] Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”,[6] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[7]

The search of the suspect’s outer garments, also known as a patdown, must be limited to what is necessary to discover weapons;[8] however, pursuant to the “plain feel” doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contraband’s identity is immediately apparent.[9]

In some jurisdictions, persons detained under the doctrine of Terry must identify themselves to police upon request. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, the Court held that a Nevada statute requiring such identification did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, or, in the circumstances of that case, the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination.

It is reasonable to conclude that a perv pulling someone over is a traffic stop (unless there is a definition somewhere of traffic stop). and the part about identifying oneself in some jurisdictions has no parallel in the TSA procedure because TSA “regulations” are not statutes.

I think its really important to notice the differences betweeen a pat down at a Terry Stop and the TSA agent who said “I can do anything I want.”

The Terry Stop is defined carefully by SC and the TSA defines it as “I can do anything I want” BUT there's no law or regulation or case law that says that's true!! We need to scare the crap out of these perverts and their pervert boss

[Author#2]

Franklin,

Excellent. Thanks for sharing that. That was one brave graduate who told the truth.

Last time I was at a high school graduation, the image in my mind was a new crop of livestock ready to be sheared and harvested by its farmer, Uncle Sam. That crop is described in:

The REAL Matrix

http://famguardian1….REAL_Matrix.wmv

What I thought in my mind at the time: “Here's another crop of unwitting Obamacare SOCIALIST sponsors, whether they want to be or not. More MEAT for me! Yummy. They are all wearing ear tags like cattle…the SSN. Gotta measure the crop yield, you know.”

Disgusing.

The most dangerous thing for any bureaucrat is a person who REALLY thinks for themselves and asks LOTS of questions. This kind of a person, when asked for “THEIR Social Security Number” responds as indicated in section 7.4 of the following and REALLY turns the lights on, thus making the cockroach parasites go run for cover:

http://sedm.org/Form…s/AboutSSNs.htm

I think the word she was searching for was “nonthinking conformists”. That is what the schools generate: Good corporate drones created in the image of their parens patriae government creator. As George Carlin points out in the following video, they are just smart enough to do the paperwork and run the machines but dumb enough to not be able to figure out the SCAM that is being pulled on them. Corporate America wants “Obedient Workers”, as Carlin puts it. He was right on the money and singing the same tune as this graduate!:

George Carlin on Who Controls America

http://famguardian.o…rolsAmerica.wmv

The NUMBER ONE method for teaching people how NOT to think, or “critically think”, is television. It is mental poison. If any of you REALLY want to learn how to think and engage your mind, the ONLY source you have is reading and the NON-mulitimedia content on the internet. Reading requires you to engage your mind and your critical thinking and is not a passive activity at all.

Whatever enlightenment this graduate had didn't come from the GOVERNMENT educational system, but from reading websites like this. Ironically, the tyrants in the District of Criminals want to squealch this kind of education to keep the cattle blissefully unaware of their morbid fate at the slaughterhouse. Reminds me of “Soylent Green” the movie, where old people are recycled to make food for the living. Well after you graduate from the public fool academy, you go to the corporate factory to be food for older generations in a socialist geritocracy.

Welcome to the matrix, neo. Now go drink your government Koolaid and SHUT UP.

[Author#2]

If the PDSRA is inevitable, then you must seek your own accommodation with “Big Brother”. If the PDSRA is avoidable, you will have to construct your “escape” from their “new world order”.

In sound bite format, I conclude that individually, and in groups, we are going to have to recognize fundamentals such as the difference between a right endowed by one's Creator, and a privilege (aka “right”) granted by a government. And anything a government gives, invariably requires it being taken from someone else. Furthermore, until consent is withdrawn, “confrontation” with government is futile.

Then what?

If you've determined the ways you've given consent, and are ready to withdraw that consent, you will have to find your own way of dealing with “the system” while living outside of it. In other words, once you restore your sovereign status, via owning private property upon which you established your domicile, you will have to support your right to life with harmless activity.

It may be difficult to trade with the “Collectivists” who unknowingly assume that you are contrary to “real Americanism”. Folks get “feisty” when they discover that you don't pay all the taxes they do. (Of course, you're not a “person liable”, and are not in violation of any tax law.)

You may also find it necessary to reduce your consumption while boosting your production of useful goods and services. Of course, once you no longer have the parasitic load of the collectivists upon you, a little goes a long long way. (For inspiration, read Dolly Freed's “Possum Living” http://www.possumliving.net/- an anti-socialist before it was chic)

Investment for the long term

In my humble and subjective opinion, I'd seek to construct the most frugal, low consumption, shelter (ignoring the codes which only apply to real estate – not private property). That shelter might incorporate such features that would enable it to function despite an interruption in resupply, utilities, fuel, water, etc., etc. In fact, I would hope to make it disaster resistant and comfortable regardless. See: Autonomous building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_building.

First off, I'd scrap the minimalist decrees in most building codes. If you're going to build your domicile, your domain, your “castle”, make it so it will last at least 100 years or more. That reduces your options to stone, concrete, cement, and brick. I'd want the most super insulated shell I could afford. You can never have “too much” insulation. My preference is a concrete stress skin shell with a generous EPS foam core. But even an insulated concrete form (ICF) isn't out of the question – as long as you “skin” it well.

Windows would be sized and situated for letting in light – and that's all. Operable windows make lousy fire exits, ineffective ventilation, and leak when closed. And “picture windows” are wasteful decoration. For fire exits, I'll have a metal doorway, a fire resistant stair case, and won't be building with a fuel source anyway. For ventilation, I will have outlets at the top, to exhaust hot air (or recycle it), and inlets at the bottom. I'd add insulated shutters, for those times of temperature extreme. (Even the most expensive glazing has pitiful performance as insulation)

I'd install a cistern and collect rainwater – just in case.

Install a dry composting toilet system – just in case.

Install a hand pump in the kitchen, connected to the cistern – just in case.

Install a solar hot water heater – just in case.

I'd install / invest in all manner of food production – permaculture http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/organic/the-essence-of-permaculture-gardening.htm perennial gardening, aeroponics, hydroponics, orchard, fish pond, chickens, ducks, rabbits, green house, keyhole gardening, and so forth.

(See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ring_life/message/142)

For hot and humid climates, I'd suggest segregating appliances that generate a lot of waste heat. I'd also look into “sleeping porches”, summer kitchens, and other means to keep cool, without power. For cold climates, I'd look into making an ice house, to “invest” all that winter cold for the hot summer.

The list can go on and on… but you get the idea.

It's the 21st century version of going “back to the future”, while keeping modern options open.

And hopefully, the next time “something” goes awry, you can button up in your domicile, and wait it out. Which is a good thing – reducing the demands upon the “first responders”.

Failure to plan is planning to fail.

[Author#2]

Neo,

What you are engaging in clearly appears to us as “outcome based research”, which is where you know the outcome you want and interpret the facts to support the desired outcome. The outcome you want is to continue receiving the plunder stolen from your neighbor and your children to fund your retirement. In spite of everything you know and have articulated in these forums about citzienship, and in spite of the fact that you agree with the citizenship research on this website and have even contributed to improving it, you STILL do all the following in order to continue the flow of plunder into your checking account:

1. Know you must declare yourself to be a statutory “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. 1401.

2. You must avoid looking the gift horse and thief in the mouth that is paying you.

3. You must avoid taking any responsibility for making waves in the workplace based on the information you have learned here or actually APPLYING it to your situation as a military officer.

That makes you no better than the rest of your federal coworkers, and especially those in the IRS, who always interpret things wrongfully to their own financial advantage. That's just a polite way for them to admit they are THIEVES, LIARS, and CHEATS.

Have you no decency? And to do all this in the name of glorifying God and seeking truth and justice consistent with the mission of this ministry makes it even worse.

The corrupt thieving ruler who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. Right, Paul?

This isn't about being right or who is right, it's about not selling the truth for 20 pieces of silver.

_____________

juliusbragg,

You're absolutely right. We have a mole among us, and neo is the mole and the judas, because he has lost his objectivity and sold his integrity for 20 pieces of silver.

[Author#2]

Franklin,

Thanks for the input. The above post supports the point of this website that:

1. All law is linked to fictional entities and may be enforced primarily against fictional entities, such as “public offices”.

2. The government is a private corporation.

3. We are all enfranchised and without rights as public officers in the “U.S. Inc.” federal corporation.

HOWEVER, the link to the Extortion book acknowedges contributions by redemptionists and we strongly warn our members not to trust the work of redemptionists. See:

Policy Document: UCC Redemption, Form #08.002

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…icyDocs/UCC.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

The two redemptionists ackhnowedged in the Extortion book include:

1. Winston Shrout

2. Sam Kennedy

Readers are MUCH better off sticking to reading the law for themselves and to the following documents,which provide evidence to prove everything they allege and which are more carefully researched, than to rely on the Extortion book linked above.

1. Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…aw/CorpGovt.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

2. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/Franchises.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

3. Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…StatLawGovt.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

There may be a few shreds of truth in the Extortion book, and you can find it on this website at:

Scams page, Section 6

http://famguardian.o…Scams/scams.htm

Direct link:

http://famguardian.o…O/extortion.pdf

However, I wouldn't trust ANYTHING in that book that isn't backed up with objectively verifiable, third party evidence from the law, court rulings, etc. We try VERY hard to keep people from making presumptions and to verify things for themselves, but almost all of what redemptionists do seems to based entirely on presumptions that are not only not substantiated, but which are in VIOLATION of what the written law actually says. If you want to know why presumptions are evil and violate people's rights, see:

Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #)5.017

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Presumption.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

[Author#2]

For the place to file EIN applications, see:

http://www.irs.gov/f…=111138,00.html

If you are COMPELLED to file such an application in order to do business or open a bank account, we STRONGLY encourage you to attach the following form or you will likely destroy private rights and donate them to the government:

Employer Identification Number (EIN) Application Attachment, Form #06.023

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/foru…_download&id=32 (OFFSITE LINK)

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

[Author#2]

SOURCE: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=214471,00.html

________________

Updating Incorrect Business Entity Information

Many taxpayers have applied for Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) listing on the application an individual or entity other than the entity’s true responsible party as the principal officer, general partner, grantor, owner, or trustor. The use of such an individual or entity, a “nominee”, has resulted in IRS records containing incorrect information. Entities that used nominees on their applications should consider updating the information shown on the original application.

Who Should Update the Information?

Any entity that applied for an EIN listing a nominee as the “principal officer”, etc., and listing the nominee’s Taxpayer Identification Number as that of the principal officer, should send the IRS a letter providing the name and Taxpayer Identification Number (Social Security Number, Employer Identification Number, or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) of the true responsible party. Entities that submitted applications that showed, as the principal officer, an individual or entity who is no longer the true responsible party also should update the entity’s information.

What the Terms “Nominee” and “Responsible Party” Mean

A “nominee” is someone who is given limited authority to act on behalf of an entity, usually for a limited period of time, and usually during the formation of the entity. The “principal officer, general partner,” etc., as defined by the IRS, is the true “responsible party” for the entity, instead of a nominee. The “responsible party” is the individual or entity that controls, manages, or directs the entity and the disposition of the entity’s funds and assets, unlike a nominee, who is given little or no authority over the entity’s assets. If there is more than one responsible party, the entity may list whichever party the entity wants the IRS to recognize as the responsible party.

Why the Information should be corrected

In the event that the IRS has a need to contact an entity about a tax matter relating to the business, we must be certain we are contacting the correct party. Otherwise, information regarding an entity could be disclosed to someone who is not authorized to receive such information. The IRS is considering several ways to identify the responsible parties of entities. However, by updating the information itself, an entity can establish that it is a reliable partner of the IRS in complying with the Federal tax laws.

How to Update the Information

There is no form available to update the information, and the IRS asks entities updating their information NOT to submit a second EIN application. Instead, the IRS asks that the entity send a letter, on company letterhead, if available, providing the name and Taxpayer Identification Number of the current principal officer, general partner, grantor, owner, or trustor. Be sure to include the entity’s complete name, EIN, and mailing address so we can correctly identify your IRS account. Depending upon the entity’s principal business address, the entity should send the letter to the following IRS campus:

If the entity’s principal business, office or agency is located in:

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia or Wisconsin Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, or any place outside of the United States

Send Letter or Fax to:

Internal Revenue Service

Stop 343G

Cincinnati, OH 45999

Fax Number: 859-669-5748 Internal Revenue Service

M/S 6273

Ogden, UT 84201

Fax Number: 801-620-7116

Confirmation

The IRS will send a letter confirming our receipt of the updated information. If the entity has not received the confirmation letter within 60 days, it should fax a copy of the original letter, annotated “Second Request”, to the campus that services the entity’s state.

References and Related Topics

Employer ID Numbers (EINs)

Apply for an Employer Identification Number (EIN) Online

[Author#2]

Neo,

It may be true that SS is not identified in the “trade or business” category by the code. See 26 USC 861(a)(8) and 26 USC 871(a)(3). In practice, however, the SSA files information returns on the payments, making the WHOLE payment “trade or business” ANYWAY. Explain that one away.

The Privacy Act at 5 USC 552a(a)(13) identifies all those eligible to receive deferred retirement such as Social Security as “federal personnel”. If the deferred compensation of the SS trustee is not “trade or business” earnings but the person receiving it is “federal personnel”, that would have to make the recipient a “worker” but not a statutory “employee” per 5 USC 2105(a) and therefore a “public officer” engaged in the “trade or business” franchise.

And by the way, as far as that 75 year old toothles man you mentioned, would that be you?

Heeee…..heeee. 😆

[Author#2]

1. A public officer is someone who operates in a representative capacity on behalf of the public. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) is the only way the have to reach into a state and operate upon “persons” rather than just their own property. That rule requires that the party must be acting in a representative capacity. How can you act in a representative capacity for a government/public trust, the Social Security Trust, and NOT be a “public officer”?

Quote:

IV. PARTIES > Rule 17.

Rule 17. Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity; Public Officers

(b) Capacity to Sue or be Sued.

Capacity to sue or be sued is determined as follows:

(1) for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity, by the law of the individual's domicile;

(2) for a corporation, by the law under which it was organized; and

(3) for all other parties, by the law of the state where the court is located, except that:

(A) a partnership or other unincorporated association with no such capacity under that state's law may sue or be sued in its common name to enforce a substantive right existing under the United States Constitution or laws; and

(:cool: 28 U.S.C. §§ 754 and 959(a) govern the capacity of a receiver appointed by a United States court to sue or be sued in a United States court.

[SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule17.htm]

Rule 17(b)(1) doesn't apply, because the state domiciled non-citizen national is not domiciled in the federal zone. Rule 17(b)(2) is the only one that is relevant, and it implies that the “person” is a corporation and that you are acting on behalf of the corporation, which is the “United States” and which is the majority owner of the trust you are representing as a “benefit” recipient. This is also consistent with the definition of “person” found in I.R.C. 7343 and 6671(b).

The only way you can effect a change in the “choice of law” of a human being is to act in a representative capacity. In dealing with governments, the only kind of representative capacity you can have is a public officer representing a federal and not state corporation. An ordinary worker or someone who is only manageing private property donated to a public use using the number is NOT acting in a representagive capacity.

2. The ONLY definition of “income” found anywhere in the I.R.C. is in section 643(b). That definition identifies “income” as the earnings of a trust or estate. Hence, the Social Security Trust. You are the trustee and public officer as a benefit recipient.

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/income.htm

3. If you want a place to start that addresses “income” of nonresidents connected to a trade or business or not connected, see:

Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 13

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/NonresidentAlienPosition.pdf

Based on our discussion, looks like that section needs beefing up.

If you want to continue the discussion of income under 26 USC 871(a), please start a new thread in the Nonresident Alien Position Forum instead of here. This forum only deals with citizenship, not taxes.

http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showforum=3

4. Everything we know about the distinctions between the “national government” and the “federal government” is contained in the following article. If that is insufficient, please add your additional research here so that the article can be improved to address the needs of all on the subject:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/USvUSA.htm

An expanded version of the above article is contained in Section 6 of the Nonresident ALien Position pamphlet mentioned earlier.