One great irony here is that taxpayers in United States are paying interest on the U.S. debt to China and China is then using some of that money to fund its military.

So in effect, the U.S. government is helping its 21st century enemy, China, build a more up to date and awesome military.

And this is the type of crap that our corrupted federal government does. Hypothetically speaking, it is hardly surprising when some nut-job goes off half-cocked and shoots federal employees or do what that guy did a few years ago, and park his small air plane on the 4th floor of an IRS building.

Just to be clear, I am not in any way advocating violence against anyone, merely trying to explain how some folks might react and act out to what they perceive to be treasonous acts by federal officials.

I think that since China is Communist, and in theory that is supposed to be antithetical to what America is supposed to stand for, that China should be forbidden from purchasing US Govt securities

Dude, you are Da- Man!!!

Great find, prollins

Thank you

Bing

Franklin, it is all about TEAMWORK. LOL

Anyway, I agree with Admin. . . . for those interested, here is the B/S alleged opinion by the Indiana Supreme Court –

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

The Law of Necessity trumps these criminal po -po's unlawful entry into a private home. As they say in Latin America, Necessitas non habet legem – which translated means “necessity has no law.”

And of course, my all – time favorite – Necessitas sub lege non continetur, quia quod alias non est licitum necessitas facit licitum – which means, get this, “Necessity is not restrained by law, since what otherwise is not lawful, necessity makes lawful.”

If the defendent in Indiana, Mr. Richard Barnes had more competent counsel, they would have invoked the Law of Necessity if they could prove that the homeowner, Mr. Barnes, believed the lives of his family members were in danger.

See page 1030 – Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition.

Maybe some of them pesky Sovereign Citizens should move to Indiana, that'll learn them judges right quick. 😮

Buc, one last thing.

One of the best things about the FG website is the “Cites By Topic” feature which has a treasure trove of info.

For example, use the search utility and drill down for the web pages “Cites By Topic” Constitution, or “Cites By Topic” Liberty. Etc., etc.

You get the idea. And you will get authoritative cites on the topic, often with powerful cites to US Supreme Court cases. Plus it will point you in the direction for further research.

I really think the Cites By Topic feature is nonpareil in every respect.

Buc, welcome to FG Forums.

This post IS NOT legal advice and I am NOT a licensed attorney. I am speaking purely hypothetically.

Sorry to hear about your plight.

A Notice of Levy is NOT a lawful levy. That is the first thing.

Second, if you are a non-taxpayer, then the remedies that the IRS offers you, such as going to Tax Court, are NOT available to you. In this connection, you are not bound by any alleged deadline contained in the Notice of Levy, as those dates ONLY apply to taxpayers, not to non-taxpayers.

It sounds as if someone, perhaps a private sector employer or a bank, filed an Information Report (a Form W- 2, W – 3, or 1099) that has your name and address on it.

Now, if you did in fact work in the private sector, and you DID NOT sign and complete a Form W – 4, you need to follow the Path to Freedom and eventually rebut and deny any and all Information Reports that were filed with your name on it.

If you genuinely are a non-taxpayer, you need to be very clear and tell the IRS of that fact, and the sooner you do that the better. And be sure to ask them to provide you with the enacted positive law and related implementing regulations published in the Federal register and referenced by page number, volume number, and date. And also tell them that if they send any future correspondence to you, to not spell your name in all CAPS, but to use your given name at your natural birth.

Again, welcome and know this, if you want to have personal liberty and freedom, you have to do alot of reading and learning and hard work. No one is going to secure your freedom for you. Liberty means personal responsibility and that is one reason why most men and women hate liberty and prefer to suck on the USG tete.

Bing

I have a real cheap, $50 cell phone, and when I read stuff like the above, I want smash the cell phone up against a wall.

Here is a real anomaly if ever there was one.

The US Supreme Court ruled that Texas never left the Union even though they supposedly seceded, to wit:.

It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union. As an aisde, I understand that similar executive actions were taken with other Southern Union states.

What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union, or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in “readmitting” a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.

To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived “interpretation” of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.

This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day. Kinda like the fact that there was a technical error of some import made in 1803 by either the US Congress or alleged Ohio legislature that essentially meant that Ohio was note really admitted into the USA until the error was retroactively corrected by the US Congress in early 1950s. This means that every vote cast by Ohio Senators and Representatives should be declared null and void. Imagine having to unwind all that crap.

Now to the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White, supra,

The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.

It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a “constitutional” argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.

An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda (gee – no surprise there ) which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).

Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.

The corrupted US Government that we experience today has a long, long history. And if one goes back and examines any period in American History where major events were going on, especially any period crises, and you examine US Govt documents, you will be amazed at all manner of corrupt goings on being perpetrated by the lying and corrupted US Government officials.

Simply shameful.

Bing

WOW!!

Tomorrow I am going to go get a copy of the federal court case cited in the lead post.

I know someone who was recently summoned for jury duty and one of the requirements according to the Union state website is that said prospective juror must be a “citizen of the United States”.

Anyway, the court clerk received a letter from the prospective juror asking the clerk for the definition of “citizen of the United States”.

We await the reply and I will let you know what the clerk says, if anything. I suspect though, that they will ignore the guy's query and letter.