[Bing]

franklin wrote on Jul 9 2008, 08:16 PM:

Speaking of reading more closely

Quote:

Author #2 is busy at the pool with the kids, but I know they concur.

Bing, what documented proof do you have that the kids concur? 😀

[post=”5006″][/post]

I am informed that Author #2 had the toddlers and the twins, execute affidavits, from without the “United States”, prior to going to the pool. 😆 😆

That's how I know they concur.

If they dissented, they would have been given “timeouts”

[Bing]

Author #2 is busy at the pool with the kids, but I know they concur.

Bing

A strange man, albeit a full-time nonresident alien who enjoys writing, “I concur in part and I dissent in part.” 😆

[Bing]

lambskin wrote on Jul 8 2008, 08:36 PM:

Hey Franklin,

Just wanted you to know that your presence in these forums is also an encouragement to others here, it lets everybody know that you are another American that seeks to do away with the corrupt activities of the U.S. and the trickle-down effect that corruption has within the several states and local communities.

Lambskin

[post=”5000″][/post]

Umm, yeah, what Lambskin said. Well said.

Franklin, fight smart.

[Bing]

Reb, and to all others in the Forum who might have an interest in the historical development and codification of the United States Code volumes, please see the US Government report @

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…-1919to1920.pdf

and you can read an admission where a US Congressman admitted in YEAR 1919, that it was impossible to know what the statutory laws of the USA really are.

Imagine that!!!

America is a society in which the actual laws are indeterminable!!!

Where is the due process of law in that admission???

[Bing]

Franklin, I am NOT a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

I am sure you likely already know this, but for the uninitiated in this Forum, PLEASE try never to forget that a Summons is a means of acquiring jurisdiction over a person. It is artfully used every day as a way to trick someone into coming into the IRS' jurisdiction.

There are two types of jurisdiction,

1) is subject matter jurisdiction, and,

2) in personam jurisdiction (i.e. jurisdiction over the person).

Franklin, you are very smart to want to avoid stepping foot inside any federal court.

But if you must appear in a federal court, make clear to the court that you are making a “special appearance” and not a “general appearance”, and that you are doing so only to challenge jurisdiction on the Record.

Shift the jurisdictional burden right from the start. And cling to it like it was Marilyn Monroe's butt cheeks. 🙄 😎

If I were in your shoes, hypothetically speaking, I would not proceed “pro se” but instead would be “Sui Juris”, which means that you suffer from no legal disability and you possess full civil rights and that you have the capacity to manage your own affairs.

when one is “Pro se” you are representing yourself, and thus are an officer of the court and can be sanctioned and more readily controlled by the court.

By contrast, when one is Sui juris, you are speaking for yourself, you are acting for oneself, as opposed to representing yourself. This is a key distinction lost on many learned folks in the Tax Honesty Movement.

If you read and study the available case materials of Mr.Hansen's, you will get a first rate legal education on how to properly challenge IRS jurisdiction.

Sui juris you are not an officer of the court and generally speaking, you are immune from court sanctions and thus, can not be so easily manipulated by a corrupt federal judge.

Bing

A non-attorney who almost never passes a Bar without chugging a few cold ones 😕

[Bing]

Great quote!!

Thanks.

We have to lead by our daily and hourly example.

One reason why I have so few close friends, is that I simply refuse to associate with people who lack character and integrity. I simply will not do it.

Bing

[Bing]

Great move by obtaining the SEDM Treatise “What Happened To Justice?”.

The evidence will astonish you!!!

Do not do like I did, and get all bummed out after you Learn the Truth about how the corrupt U.S. Congress, over a span of 200+ years, have denied the American People their lawful right to access Article III Judicial courts, as opposed to Article IV Executive Branch territorial courts, which is what we really have.

Anyway, I do not know the answer to your IRS Summons problem, but I strongly encourage you to Read the success story that WTP's Bob Schulz has had in fighting IRS Summonses.

Bob did a masterful job in fighting the IRS Summons against him and his bank, and he prevailed in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Basically, unless the IRS summons was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and signed by a judge, you are free to ignore it with impunity

PLEASE carefully read the Schulz decision and read Schulz's Motions filed in his IRS Summons case, and you will know exactly how to handle it.

I read that stuff many, many months ago I do not recall Schulz's specific arguments, but I do know he crafted some great stuff and you can use his info to prevail in your extant case.

Go to WTP website and search for Schulz's stuff, I am pretty sure it is in their. Also, they may even be posted in these Forums, use the FG search utility and check it out.

Good luck and keep us informed how you handled it.

Bing

[Bing]

In one of my posts above, I made reference to a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Report that dealt a fatal blow to FDR's U.S. Supreme Court packing plan.

Anyway, it was the 75th Congress, 1st Session, January 5, 1937 to August 11, 1937, Volume 1, Senate Report 711, published in 1937.

Anyway, it is a great read for those that are interested in learning how FDR tried to usurp and take over the federal judiciary.

Bing

[Bing]

reb wrote on Jul 4 2008, 03:23 AM:

A few more thoughts on the Statutes at Large.

I have researched the law for 30 years and only in the last week have I ever used the SAL.

[post=”4987″][/post]

reb,as you know better than most, the US Congress has made the laws/codes/SAL so complex, I am not surprised that you are only now,just discovering the SAL.

You are not alone in this.

The SAL, which is legal evidence of the law, is so complex that if one wanted to know the law on a certain subject, one would literally have to go thru the SAL Volumes searching for the topic, but ya have to do so from year 1790 or so, until 2008.

Reb, check out the Revised Statutes from 1875 and published by Little Brown, I think.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress got so frustrated because they could not figure out what the present laws were, that they created a Committee to go thru every extant SAL volume, and figure out which laws were repealed.

Now, allegedly, they distilled all of the previous SAL Volumes, which I think were 17 in number, and placed all the then current positive Laws into the Revised Statutes Volumes.

But get this, they later admitted that Revised Statutes had like, a gazillion errors.

Anyway,after WW I, Congress got the idea to try and simplify things again, so they created the U.S.Code volumes.

The idea was to simplify access to the law by enacted into positive law, and transferring the then SAL laws, into the US Code titles.

Right,in fact, teams of Lawyers in House of Representatives have been trying for decades, yes decades, to figure out how to enact all of the USC Code Titles, which include positive and special laws, and combine them in a way so that special laws,like the IRC at 26 USC, would be enacted into positive law.

The US Congress has said this project of enacting all the U.S. Code Titles into positive law, is supposedly being done to make the law more accessible for the average American.

But this is a blatant lie!!!

Congress DOES NOT want folks referring to the U.S. SAL.

So what they have been trying to do, albeit very slowly and through accretion and deletion, is they are trying to hide the law.

This is by design.

Recall that prior to Jan.1, 2002, the term “Act of Congress” meant an Act locally applicable to the District of Columbia.

Well, this definition was “deleted: in an “editorial decision” as Rule 54 ( c ) was combined into a newly revised Rule 1.

See http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…sOfCongress.htm

NOTE:the url link on above page does not work, but you get the idea.

MORAL: The US Congress is untrustworthy, so when they publicly they state that they are doing something for one reason, you can be assured that their real motivation is to achieve some other purpose. So one must ask themselves, who stands to benefit from Congress' actions?

And in nearly every instance, Congress acts or reacts to accrete more power or money to itself or the Executive Branch.

The end.

Bing

[Bing]

reb, I posted my last post while you were posting yours., so I did not have the benefit of reading your post before I crafted mine.

But I am going to go back and study your posts and the 1939 IRC and see if I can understand what exactly you are saying.

If I read you right, you are saying that from 1939 until 1954, the 1939 IRC was in force. I s that correct?

Thanks for your insights on this. I thought I had this stuff master 5 years ago but maybe I was wrong, I dunno now.

I have to go and check this out further.

Thanks again.

Bing

[Bing]

Reb, I think I was unclear.

It is not that the SAL are redundant. That is not it all.

The SAL are superior to the USC and the positive law volumes of the USC are a subset of the SAL, not the other way around.

If you have not visited the Office if Law Revision Counsel web page, I urge you to check it out. Also, see the About U.S. Code web page

reb, they had to publish the 1954 IRC in the SAL once they enacted it into positive law. But they repealed it that same day, Aug 16, 1954!!

So, as to better hide their deceit and not mess up the numbering sequence of the SAL volumes, they created a Volume 68A.

If you look at all of the of the SAL volumes from the founding of the Republic, you will discover that Volume 68A is the ONLY volume so numbered, with an alpha character after the sequential Volume number.

There is no other volume of the SAL in which the ENTIRE SAL Volume was repealed.

Why?

Because generally, each SAL volume contains MANY Acts/laws. By contrast, Volume 68A of SAL had only one Act, the 1954 IRC. That's it!!

Now, in each SAL Volume it contains many positive Laws, and often, years later, the Congress decides to repeal specific laws or Acts, and that is common. But never have they repealed an entire SAL Volume.

It only happened one time, in Aug 1954 with the IRC. That is when Volume 68A was repealed. And, I suspect it may also be why courts and IRS often refer to the 1939 Code, because when they do so, they are referring to the 1939 IRC BEFORE it was repealed.

The contents of the SAL are codified in the appropriate USC Title. The SAL is evidence of the law, whereas the non-positive law titles (i.e. special laws) of the US Code are merely prima facie evidence of the law, and can be rebutted by consulting the SAL.

Some of the best minds in America that know this stuff as well and even better than I do, are right here in these Forums. And if they do not issue a counter post correcting my posts, you can pretty much be assured that what I have posted is accurate.

But if I am wrong, the error and mistakes are mine alone.

[Bing]

reb, I admire your powers of logic, but you lost me.

Are you suggesting that the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 WAS NOT REPEALED?

If so, I respectfully dissent.

As I understand it, and I came to this conclusion years ago on my own, and not from reading anything at FG — the 1939 Code was repealed along with all prior revenue laws, and every version of the IRC since then has been based upon a REPEALED Code.

Here is the proof:

Yes, you are correct, the IRC was codified in 1954 into US Stat Volume 68A.

Now, all positive laws are reported in the US Statutes at Large, correct?

And yet, even though it was for a very brief time put into the U.S. Statutes at Large back in 1954, the IRC is not positive law, correct? See 1 USC 204 for proof and the USC Titles page that appears in every USC volume.

Now, if the codified version of the IRC that was placed in US Stat. 68A, was NOT repealed, then how come the IRC is not identified as being positive law? After all, it is contained in US Stat at Large, right?

Ask the Law Librarian this question and see what they tell you and get back to us.

Okay.

If you review 26 USC 7851 ( a) ( 1 ) ( A ), which is Exhibit 0017 at http://www.sedm.org

Exhibit 17 B @ http://www.sedm.org/Exhibits/EX0017.pdf — you will readily see that the IRC was enacted and but only for a very brief time. It was repealed on Aug 16, 1954!!!

It is absolutely bizarre what the US Congress did back in 1953/54. And it is proof positive of the breadth and depth and scope of their official corruption and desire to hide the Truth from the American People.

Honest Lawmakers do not need to resort to such blatant trickery and craftiness when legislating, but obviously, our beloved U.S. Congress is filled with corrupted politicians who do the bidding of lobbyists and corrupt Federal Reserve System, and so, American gets this type of result —- legislation and codes and laws that are extremely difficult to understand.

Finally, even the 1986 IRC is based upon the 1939 Code.

From an historical perspective, the mid to late 1930s, FDR was getting creamed by the U.S Supreme Court, which kept declaring many NEW DEAL Programs to be unconstitutional — and FDR tried to retaliate by packing the US Supreme Court.

Somewhere on FG website there is a pdf file of a U.S. Senate report from I think 1937 or 1938, in which the Senate Judiciary Committee ruled AGAINST FDR and his bull -(censored) Supreme Court packing Plan.

I searched FG for 5 minutes this morning and could not locate it. It is a great read though and I encourage everyone to see how at least some members of the US Senate stood up to and defeated the tyrannical FDR.

Bing

[Bing]

We should be using google earth to monitor the activity in an around the USG owned, FEMA operated prison camps.

When we detect activity in and around these prison camps, that is a trip wire that civil unrest is in the offing.

WE need t get the general addresses of these camps.

Also, I think folks should once again start sending nonthreatening, respectful, professional, educational letters to DOJ attorneys, pointing them to where they can find the Truth.

This way we can help the DOJ use their resources more efficiently.

Look, I personally think the DOJ should prosecute tax evaders. I really do. They should go after every one who has a legal liability. I am 100% supportive of that.

Myself, I always pay 100% of the income taxes for which I am liable. Always.

Bing

[Bing]

Chuckle. 😀

What are you getting all defensive about??

Praise be to the Lord.

Bing

[Bing]

Admin wrote on Jul 2 2008, 04:39 AM:

PROOF THERE'S NO CONSTITUTION

Counting from July 4, 1776 the fourteen years won?t begin until July 4, 1790.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera edrivera@edrivera.com

[post=”4973″][/post]

If I am following Dr. Rivera correctly, the word “begin” in the above excerpt, should be “end”.

Perhaps I am missing something, but the good Dr, asserts that the Office of President had no term. I do not understand. The Const. @ Art. 2, Sec 1 says the term is 4 years.

I beg to differ and I do not agree with his conclusion that the purpose of a Constitution is to be an object of an oath.

My view is that the purpose of a Constitution is to establish an organization of government that is a reflection of the will of the People; to set explicit limits on said government through an enumeration of powers; and to identify in general form the Rights and Liberties of the People and the states, leaving wiggle room as Article 10 of the Bill of Rights aptly does.

The purpose of a Constitution is to serve as a Supreme Law that is devoted to the Rule of Law and which can not be altered or abolished except in a manner so prescribed in said Constitution. Leaving aside the fact that Constitution are scrapped by use of Force. And here is where Dr. R may be on to something. Force does not mean only military Force. I use it in a sense that it can be the Force of corruption in.

Which, as we know from reading SEDM's seminal treatise, “What Happened To Justice”, there was extant back in 1780s America, a subtle yet powerful Force of Corruption that was covertly weaving its way into the minds of America's Founding Fathers, especially most of those who served in the US Congress.

The Presidential oath uses the phrase “…preserve, protect, and defend…” which, on my view, means the same as “I support this Constitution.” No?