Author #2
Forum Replies Created
Riverway,
Please read:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Fals…c/Includess.pdf
Riverway wrote on Oct 12 2005, 07:54 PM:I have a question, and it may well be covered elsewhere, but please bear with me. I noticed the word “includes” in various statutes and regs. Does it mean to the “exclusion” of all others or “in addition to”? Can someone point me to court rulings on this word?Riverway
[post=”1851″][/post]Bing,
Very good! I already noticed this scam before you pointed it out, but hadn't yet gotten around to documenting it in the Hoax and Withholding books. Now it's going to be all over the place to point out to everyone that the only way they can earn “wages” is by volunteering on a W-4.
Riverway,
Thanks for the feedback. We just updated the article on how to obtain a passport as a “national” and without an SSN. You may wish to reread it. It deals with some of the issues you are having with SSNs and turning in older passports.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…orAPassport.htm
Bing,
Thank you! I'm not allowed to toot my own horn that but it's certainly encouraging to think that people such as yourself are blessed by the liberating materials and information here.
Who was it that said?:
Quote:“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”Of course that airhead gentleman doesn't want to be free cause he can't stand the truth. That same person who said the above also said that secrets are hidden that only the spiritual can understand, when he said:
Quote:Then His disciples asked Him, saying, ?What does this parable [Great IRS Hoax] mean??And He said, ?To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that
? ? ? ? Seeing they may not see,
? ? ? And hearing they may not understand.?
God bless,
JWR,
Thanks. Very well put.
He..he…he.
Bruce,
Thanks for the kudos. I can't take credit for SEDM, and God deserves all the credit for Family Guardian. This isn't my work, but His.
Much of the thanks also goes to the many contributors who send me content constantly. We spend most of our long days updating this website and it's a distinct pleasure to know that people are blessed, empowered, and liberated by the information, salvation, and inspiration contained on these pages.
God bless you and all who frequent this website and this forum,
Look in the Welcome to this forum. There is a link there. There is also a link on the Tax Freedom and Litigaiton Page under “Articles” and then “Solutions”.
JDL 1962,
Wait and see. The document has only been available for about three weeks. We sent it in as well.
The best thing that can happen is complete silence. The worst thing is for them to ask for the trust property back, which would be an admission that you don't need a driver's license and are not and never have been a federal “employee” or a “taxpayer”. No matter what happens, you can't lose.
Bing,
Thanks for the suggestion, but…Instead of piling more work on the author, why don't you guys help out by compiling what you are asking for so I can post it? Do I look like yo-mama? What you are asking for would be a tremendous amount of work, you know.
He..he…he.
Author #2
Bing wrote on Sep 22 2005, 03:08 PM:Sonik Speed wrote on Sep 22 2005, 08:31 PM:Sir Bing…Is this link what you are looking for when you talk about categorizing cases? Scroll down until you see them all.
Sonik Speed
[post=”1773″][/post]Sorta, but not really. The web page you cited is extremely helpful and is a great tool.
It is great that the url and web page you refer to, links to the http://www.findlaw.com opinion of the US SUpreme Court. However, the web page you cited does not contain all of the US Supreme Court cases cited on the famguardian website.
Second, the web page you cited does not contain the key constitutional principles espoused by the Supreme Court in said cases, broken down by subject matter, so, for example, all of the important cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of federal jurisdiction inside the Union states as per Const. 1:8:17, would be listed together and excerpted, and also on the same web page, would be the Court's rulings dealing with “liberty”, their decisions dealing with void for vagueness doctrine, statutory construction, income taxes, the 14th Amendment, etc, etc.
I think it would be helpful, especially for the more serious students and legal researchers among us, if there was one centralized web page at famguardian where all of the Supreme Court cases cited herein, were grouped together, excerpted, and had active html links.
I will cut -n-paste this post in the Suggestion Thread.
Thanks.
Bing
[post=”1774″][/post]Rick,
I experienced threats early on, but as the site and the research developed and the evidence mounted, I haven't heard any threats in over four years. I do get a lot of complements for the quality of the site and the research though, and this helps keep me motivated to continue.
There is just so much evidence of fraud on the website that is so interdependent and so consistent with everything else that anyone who tries to attack even one little thing creates so many obvious contradictions with everything else that they dig a deep hole explaining away how their view of the world fits all the other pieces of the puzzle.
The only opposition I get any more is by malicious abuse of legal process, as a way of harrassing me for expressing not my point of view, but what the facts and the law actually say about rampant corruption and deception by our government. A case in point is the current injunction attempt. It's absolutely bogus, and there isn't a single true thing in the whole bogus complaint. It's a joke, and the goal obviously isn't to win, but to harrass through abuse of legal process. They can't stop the truth from being told, but they apparently have decided that they would like to make it as inconvenient, exasperating, and costly as possible for those who decide to publish it.
More than a few people think of me as a revolutionary, mostly because of their own ignorance.
Quote:“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”? George Orwell.That's OK. I just happen to be the only one with an informed view. Everyone else is operating on presumption, apparently, and worst yet, using their own deluded presumptions as moral justification for basically discriminating against others. These aren't the kind of bigoted people who make decent friends anyway, so no love lost there. Sooner or later, their sin and presumption will lead them to stomp on their own doo-doo. Then typically they find the nearest scapegoat to blame for it, and you better hope you aren't close to such people when their doo doo hits the fan.
Don't be discouraged and stand your ground, my friend. This comment also applies to every one of you reading this as well. We're all proud of you for your courage, and we're glad you're making sure that it is based on evidence that will stand up in court. The only thing supporting the government's deluded position is presumption, ignorance, and fear of the sheeple. They have created a “stealth religion” and a “cult” called government, and they are threatening you if you don't join at the point of a gun. Government is a pagan cult and we've all been drinking the Kool-Aid:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…vtPaganCult.htm
Author #2
Iluhavets,
Interesting question.
The power to develop uniform rules of naturalization is reserved exclusively to the federal government and not to the states by the Constitution. See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4. Naturalization is then statutorily defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23) as:
Quote:8 U.S.C. ?1101(a)(23) naturalization defined(a)(23) The term ''naturalization'' means the conferring of nationality [NOT “citizenship” or “U.S. citizenship”, but “nationality”, which means “U.S. national”] of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever
.
Even if the states did naturalize a person, they would still become a national under federal law. Whether that made them exclusively a state national or a federal national is not determined as far as we can tell anywhere. It would seem that the states could make them a state national, but they could only be so within one state and they would not have “equal protection” in the other states under the COnstitution without also being a federal national. See Great IRS Hoax section 4.3.4 on the subject of equal protection.
For further cites on naturalization, see:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…uralization.htm
Toto75,
Look at the “Welcome” post in this forum and you will find out.
Brazosdedios,
Your questions are premature and you are headed for BIG TROUBLE. All of the questions you are asking are evidence that you simply aren't doing your homework BEFORE jumping in and doing things. You are NOT following the process in FAQ #2.9:
http://famguardian.org/FAQ/FAQ.htm
You SHOULD NOT be using anything on this website UNTIL you have read chapters 3 through 5 of the Great IRS Hoax and decided for yourself that you are a “nontaxpayer”. If you had done that, you wouldn't be asking the questions you are asking and would be able to answer them for yourself.
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6
Get educated or be destroyed by your oponent. If you aren't willing to get educated or if you have to depend on anyone else for that education or to tell you what is right, then you may as well bend over and pay your socialist protector whatever they say you owe, whether there is a law requiring it or not. If you aren't willing to literally earn your freedom, then you simply don't deserve it.
The last thing we want is ignorant and uninformed people who have not done their homework to be going into court and not only making themselves into a fool, but also making us into a fool by using our materials and also disrupting IRS operations because they are acting like a “taxpayer” but claiming to be a “nontaxpayer”. Be patient with yourself and REALLY do your homework before you take on the beast, or you will hurt EVERYONE who frequents this website.
Present domicile AND place of birth combine to determine one's citizenship status. You cannot correct your citizenship status without ALSO clarifying your correct domicile. The process is the same, no matter where you were born. See:
1. Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…ForTaxation.htm
2. Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…hyANational.pdf
3. Frequently asked question #4.7:
http://famguardian.org/FAQ/FAQ.htm
The place one lives and the place of their legal domicile can and often are two completely different places. You can live on federal territory and yet still not have a domicile there. One must consent to be governed and consent to be subject to the civil laws of a place before they become either “citizens” or “residents”. That act of consent is a protected, voluntary choice of political affiliation protected by the First Amendment that you court or jury can lawfully interfere with.
Brazosdedios,
The term “naturalization” is statutorily defined as the process of conferring “nationality”. See:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…uralization.htm
Therefore, one who is “naturalized” by law becomes a “national” and a Constitutional citizen. Which place they are ALSO a statutory “citizen” of is then determined by their “domicile”. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…ForTaxation.htm
