[Bing]

Also, please see the thread at http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread348263/pg1 and get the insights of some of other learned cyber peers, who, much like those who post in these Forums, understand that the IRS and US Dept of Justice are both epic LIARS who have lied and cheated millions of Americans every year!!!!!

[Bing]

Great article!! 🙂

Thanks.

For those that are interested in reading the Las Vegas Review Journal mentioned in the lead post above, which was published after the IRS lost on ALL 161 counts, go to http://www.lvrj.com/news/9893062.html

I strongly suggest that all you Freedom lovers out there, make copies of the article and send it to the IRS asking them questions. And wait and see what type of responses you get.

Also, share this victory with all of your friends so they can see that People do win against the IRS.

Bing

[Bing]

Ahahahahahahahahahahayhahahaha!!

I LOVE YOU, Admin. BROTHER!!!! 😀 😆

Thanks.

Bing

[Bing]

Many years ago, when I was trying to learn about federal jurisdiction inside the 50 Union states, I read the writings of, and was taught by:

1. Dr.Ed Rivera

2. Family Guardian

3. Lowell Becraft

4.Dave Champion (Champion's web site has dramatically changed and his Jurisdiction stuff was all removed a long time ago)

5. US Supreme Court cases

6.US Government documents

So, I have an intellectual debt owed to Messenger Rivera that I can never hope to repay.

All that said, I confess to not understanding Rivera's lead post above. I know there is a corporate “United States”, but I am confused as to how this was so way back in 1790.

I am also confused and do not understand how he concluded that there were 2 Presidents.

I think something is going on with the dates 1789 and 1790, but it is unclear to me what he is getting at.

If memory serves me right, I seem to recall some Presidential Proclamations being signed as President of the USA and others as President of the United States. I could be wrong here too, but when time permits I will go back and review 3 CFR for prior years.

How and in what manner does a President make the choice as to which of the two offices he will occupy? And when, exactly, is the choice made? Where is the choice documented?

And if the USA Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, how is it possible that the President could ignore the Supreme Law and occupy an inferior Office?

Not knowing Ed's sources, I am left wondering to myself, What the heck is he talking about???

Can someone explain Ed's lead post in a way that makes it more understandable and point me to the sources?

Thanks.

Bing

[Bing]

I dissent to the notion that the IRS does not have a leg to stand on.

I would submit that as long as the state and federal judiciary remains corrupted, especially the USDCs, the IRS will have many legs to stand on because it can readily rely upon the mendaciousness of federal judges to do the IRS' and the US DOJ's illegal and unconstitutional bidding.

just look what happen to Dick Simkanin and Irwin Schiff. Now granted, they did not put forth their best possible defense, but once the USG and IRS and DOJ tricked the so -called tax protestors to set foot inside a federal territorial court, all bets were off and the IRS and DOJ then had Messengers Simkanin and Schiff in their respective gun sights.

And the corrupt and lying DOJ lawyers did the same thing to Sherry Peel Jackson and to Larken Rose.

We know from credible evidence contained in the SEDM's e – book, available at http://www.sedm.org, titled “What Happened To Justice?”, that it is the rare individual indeed, who actually can get “JUSTICE” inside a federal, Article IV territorial Court.

Rare indeed.

I personally think it is HIGH TIME we open up a new legal front and file formal, written complaints against the state licensed attorneys who are employed by the DOJ and IRS, and who do the corrupt DOJ's and corrupt IRS' bidding inside federal courts.

File written complaints with the appropriate state Bar Associations and make known the ethical and legal lapses suffered by the American People, as a direct result of the Goverment's employing dishonest lawyers.

Look, we know that the corrupt IRS and corrupted DOJ are not going to hold the dishonest DOJ and IRS lawyers accountable for their professional misconduct, so we need to step it up a notch or two and collectively open up a new legal front and try and out flank them, if you will.

And then take it a step further and make public the filings associated with he disciplinary proceedings.

Maybe if these corrupted lawyers working at the more corrupt DOJ and IRS are publicly vilified and shamed and made to explain themselves, maybe then we can undermine their morale and get them to open their eyes and their consciences.

And possibly even get them to defect to our cause.

maybe. . . maybe . . . .maybe.

[Bing]

SEDM RULES!!!

Bing

[Bing]

reb, you Da – Man!!

You are a superb researcher and writer.

Thanks for all of your “Liberty” insights.

And to all my friends in this Forum, reb, is someone you can trust.

Bing

[Bing]

Great post!!!!

Thanks.

Because our Union state and federal governments are SOOOOOOOO corrupted, what we need in this Republic is a good ole fashioned revolution.

And trials and death penalties for all the guilty treasonous officials.

Bing

[Bing]

Cool.

I will check it out, thanks.

A few months ago I rented a film (I forget the name) about a guy who for 10 or 12 years spent 5 months of the Alaskan Summer, or however long the summer is in Alaska, tracking, chronicling and writing and speaking about Alaskan Bears. I guess they were Kodiak Bears, I forget.

This dude literally lived with the Bears for months at a time and he did this year after year after year. And then the rest of the year he traveled around the country and spoke to school children and showed them films of his time spent camping in the wild of Alaska.

I was amazed that he could get so close to the wild bears and the bears just left him alone.

He set up his small tent right in a forest or wherever a bunch of bears were congregating.

When the bears were fishing for salmon, the dude was literally just feet away watching and observing.

It was surreal.

What was so cool is he set up a camera on a tri-pod and it captured most of his experiences.

Alas, on one sunny morning, Mr. Bear paid a visit to the dude's tent. 🙁

And since the salmon were not running as much, and, well, Mr. Bear being hungry and all, Mr. Bear decided to attack and eat Mr. Dude. 😮

With the camera running and the film recording, one can hear Mr. Dude yelling at Mr. Bear to “GO GET YOUR OWN TENT, MR BEAR!!!”

But apparently, Mr. Bear, unlike Jerry Seinfeld, left home without his American Express Credit card. Besides, Mr. Bear hated traffic and so Mr. Bear decided against buying his own tent at the Walmart in Anchorage, Alaska.

Mr. Bear did not want the now blood covered tent, being a wild Bear, he only wanted to eat some of Mr. Dude's legs, arms, and tootsies. Yep, apparently Mr. Bear had a foot fetish. Go figure. 😮

“Munch – munch – munch”, said Mr. Bear. <_<

Some time later the few remains of the Dude, a self professed,

“Mr. I – WILL – Sleep – WITH – WILD- BEARS – If – I – Want – TO – and – NOBODY – CAN – STOP – ME”, were discovered.

It was great film, and would have been even better if they allowed the audio and video of the BEAR dining, to be released to public. One only hears the initial attack and Mr. Dude screaming and squealing like he was auditioning for a part in the movie “Deliverance.”

Here is the Moral of the Film:

Neither Wild Bears nor IRS employees change their basic nature, attitudes, or character traits.

One can not and MUST NOT trust WILD BEARS. EVER!!!!

And one should NEVER, EVER trust an IRS Employee.

Because if one trust either WILD BEARS or an IRS Employee, one will get eaten alive.

Signed,

Bing the Story Teller.

All Rights Reserved. 😆

P.S. Being one of God's creatures, I :wub: Bears.

[Bing]

richard9151 wrote on Sep 17 2007, 03:23 PM:

I am impressed. Very impressed, and what impresses me the most is this;

Quote:

I purposely deleted all the material I had previously downloaded from the WTP site.

Why? Because every premise that the WTP works with is flawed, and I have to think that the reason it is flawed is because they are working with attorneys.

[post=”4248″][/post]

Excellent points, Richard, sir.

I applaud WTP and Bob Schulz for their tireless efforts to fight the corrupted IRS and U.S. Government, and have long admired his personal courage in bringing important Constitutional issues into the public domain and challenging the status quo.

Bravo, Bob!!!

However, at the same time I am greatly disappointed that WTP and Bob Schulz have not availed themselves of the wealth of knowledge that has been discovered these past 8 years, nor have they shown any indication that they have even the faintest of inklings of grasping the teachings of Ed Rivera and Dave Champion on federal jurisdiction.

I mean, here we are in year 2008, and WTP, led by Bobby Schulz recently sent out an email asking for 11 volunteers who reside in each of the 11 federal judicial districts.!?!

WTF!!!!

I mean, this latest strategic misstep is far beyond troubling.

One thing has become very clear these past few years, WTP is not an organization that learns from their mistakes nor does it care to learn from others.

Also, Bobby Schulz and WTP have done a lousy job building alliances with like-minded organizations. And when they finally do reach out to the ACLU, they do so 7 years too late, and they waste valuable political capital by sending ACLU's top honcho an arrogant, insulting letter that belittles and insults ACLU's past accomplishments and prior history.

It absolutely boggles my mind. It is beyond surreal.

WTP and Bob Schulz should have tried to reach out to the ACLU back in year 2000 or 2001. Instead, in an apparent last gasp effort to stem the defections of WTP supporters, in May 2008 Bobby Schulz writes an insulting letter to his counterpart at the ACLU and invites the ACLU to get on board and join WTP noble cause.

HELLO!! It would have been a far more effective invitation if Bobby Schulz wrote wbout how WTP can help the ACLU achieve the ACLU's goals.

Bobby Schulz, who wrote a letter to the ACLU that appears to have been written by Sgt. Schultz, of Hogan;'s Heroes fame, should have appealed to the ACLU's self-interest. But Bobby did not do that, he was too blinding in trying to get across his point and the resulting invitation letter was all about WTP's self-interests.

Granted, I am a nobody and have accomplished nothing in life, but one thing I do know is strategy. And here is my take.

It was a strategic and tactical blunder for Bob Schulz and WTP to write a letter to the top dude at the ACLU, and then simultaneously publish and broadcast the contents of said invitation letter to the entire masses via the internet.

I mean, why in the world would the ACLU want to form an alliance with WTP when Bob Schulz has demonstrated zero capability to act with discretion?

Lets say, for example, that Anthony Romero, the dude who runs the ACLU's day-to-day operations, actually wanted to form an alliance with WTP, but he was quietly working on persuading his internal constituency of the merits of same, before acting without their buy-in. And lets say Romero needed time to sell the idea of a strategic partnership with WTP internally, before he was ready to blab it to the world.

Well Schulz and WTP & Company never gave Romero that chance because WTP preemptively published the invitation letter to the world before Romero even had a chance to reply.

DOH!

Well, Bobby Schulz's propensity to press the “SEND” button whenever he writes what he perceives to be an important letter to someone who has power, pretty much assures that yet one more well publicized WTP initiative will fail before it ever has a chance of seeing the light of day.

We have seen this time and time again over the years.

Bobby Schulz has single handily built WTP. But I will also posit that Bob Schulz and the docile, do-nothing sychophants that serve as the WTP Board of Directors are WTP's own worst enemy.

I mean, if one is sincere in trying to form a strategic alliance with a prospective partner, is it not more prudent to work quietly behind the scenes and lay the basic ground work?

Would it not have been wiser and more prudent to quietly strive to build personal relationships with the key decision makers at the ACLU first, instead of insulting them with a letter that essentially insults the organization, their web content, and everything that they do?

Arrrrggghhhhhh!!!

From my distant vantage point, it is almost seems as if when any decent interval goes by and Bob Schulz does not see his name on the internet, he gets these ideas to do something, anything, just to let everyone know that he is not sitting idly by playing with his petitions of redress, but is actually WORKING HARD at WTP.

And presto, another well publicized WTP blunder is born!!!

And about the only thing the WTP masses can count on is that there will be no follow-up to the WTP ACLU insult letter. None.

And there is no way for WTP to recover from these latest debacles, because the tone and content of the two letters prove that WTP is not well led, and that shines through because the insulting tone of the letters can only mean that there is no strategic leadership at WTP.

Those two most recent letters have seriously hurt and further diminished WTP's credibility with the general public. I know Bob Schulz probably thinks they are both GREAT invitations letters, but the lack of respect and lack of tact is WTP's undoing and I would bet that BOBBY Schulz will not get a written reply from the ACLU.

I don't hate Bobby Schulz or WTP. Not at all. But I am greatly disappointed that Bob Schulz seems bent on destroying WTP and has destroyed WTP with his continuing tactical, managerial and operational ineptness. If Schulz had a Board of Directors that did their oversight job better and were serious about honoring their stewardship duties, perhaps WTP would not be so isolated as it is today, who knows.

Bob's inability to attract, retain, and surround himself with strategic advisors, and Bob's failure over the past 8 years in building effective alliances and strategic partnerships with other organizations, such as the ACLU and CATO, is the origin of WTP's demise as it now finds itself isolated and alone and has few organizational allies.

Now, it has been chronicled many times that Bob Schulz does not get paid by WTP.

And to that, all I will say is that we have gotten what WTP paid for. 😮

Bing

P.S. You all should feel free to tear this post apart and tell me all the ways I am wrong. But I stand by my remarks until someone can convince me that I am wrong on all counts.

[Bing]

I agree with you that social security numbers should not be publicly available, but the reality is that the credit reporting agencies, local and state governments, and even the Social Security Admin itself, put the numbers out on the web.

Several years ago I came across a SSA website that had the names, ages, and social security of deceased folks. No kidding. Sonik, have you ever visited that website?

Sonik, if you have time and are so inclined, I would be interested to know whether you think it was appropriate for her to raise 42 USC 1983 violations, if:

A. She was nonresident alien and a non-U.S. citizen national, i.e. an American national

and

B. She was a statutory U.S. citizen.

I am curious to know what you think of my original post in that regard. mainly, I want to know if you think there are legal flaws in my thinking.

Thanks.

Bing

[Bing]

Well, if a Union state amended their constitution to prohibit same sex marriages, I think it would fail on constitutional grounds because it would violate the Full Faith & Credit Clause.

At least that is my understanding based on my limited knowledge of Constitutional law, but I could be wrong, I frequently am. 😕

No Union state is permitted to Amend their state Const. such that it conflicts with the Law of the Land.

Separately, if you search FG you will find a relatively new item added, which was published by the US GPO and is contained @

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…utionalActs.pdf

And it becomes very clear that the Union states and their municipal governments, consistently, from 1789 until 1992, attempted to pass many, many laws that were later held to be unconstitutional.

I mean, it really is troubling. Here, we have state legislators and state employed lawyers. who, one would think, should be learned in the fundamentals of constitutional law, and yet, time after time, after time, we see Union states encroaching upon the Constitutional Rights of state Citizens, by violating the USA constitution.

What I would like to see, are state laws that makes it a criminal offense for a state legislator to vote for a law or regulation if that said law or regulation later is declared to be unconstitutional. And I would also like to see the Union states have to pay a hefty fine, payable in gold or silver, to every state Citizen who was domiciled in the state at the time said unconstitutional law was voted on and passed.

If we did this, and instilled some real accountability in the respective state legislature, perhaps we would not have so many corrupted state legislatures.

Right now, state legislators have what amounts to absolute immunity when they act in their official capacity and few, if any, are ever actually held accountable for wrongdoing.

Finally, let us not forget the wisdom of the US Supreme Court in Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1885)], when they said:

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

In so many respects, the legislatures of most of the 50 Union states are as corrupted and as morally bankrupted as the US Government.

It is a complete and utter disgrace. 😡

Bing

[Bing]

But the Social security owner is actually the Social Security Administration. I mean, you know this already, don't you?

See 20 CFR for proof.

The SS #you refer to is owned by the US Government and is US Govt property.

Look, for decades, I have been telling folks that the federal, state, and local governments have created a society that makes it very easy to steal one's ID, by compelling use and disclosure of a SS # in all kinds of transactions, especially real estate transactions, that invariably end up as public records.

And for me, it all started way back in the 1970s, when I noticed that the IRS put social security numbers on the mailing labels when they sent out their tax forms to homes.

Lambert the speeder, has only herself to blame because I suspect she gave the police officer the SS# that was temporarily assigned to her.

Also, I am not sure she can raise constitutional issues, when she runs around saying she has rights and seeks a remedy under 42 USC 1983. Title 42 of the US Code is special law, it is not positive law.

if she is a statutory U.S. citizen, she can get a remedy under 42 USC 1983, but then, I believe, she is precluded from raising the assertion she has a Constitutional protection of privacy.

In a separate issue, in many instances, the FG website invokes 42 USC and in particular, 42 USC 1983 and for a long time, I think such an invocation is a mistake, in part, for the reasons stated above.

FG and us free folks, can not say we are not subject to the legislative or statutory jurisdiction of the US Congress, and then turn around and, simultaneously seek protection and solace in a special law such as 42 USC, which is geared to protect the rights of statutory U.S. citizens.

Just my .02

Bing

[Bing]

Thus giving new meaning to the term “misogyny” (spelling??)

In a different vein, the moral issues aside, some states, such as New York and Massachusetts have, I think, passed laws permitting the marriage or recognizing the marriage of same sex couples.

Now, I am pretty sure I am a Constitutionalist.

But one subject I have never seen debated or so much as recognized by lawyers for gay and lesbian couples (granted, I don't read those state court cases) is this:

And the Constitution has what is known as the Full Faith a credit clause. which essentially asserts that each Union state must give full faith and credit to the public acts made in other states.

Now, if Ms.Hillary and Ms.Janet get married in New York and said marriage is legally recognized by New York, but then, after Hillary gets trounced by a liberal black guy while running for nomination as President, and she decides to follow Janet to Idaho, so Janet can pursue her career as a lumberjack, should not Idaho be legally required, in accordance with the USA Constitution, to recognize and give Full faith & Credit to the marriage of Hillary and Janet?

Now, I personally think that the state governments and all governments within said states, should have no role in ones marriage and I oppose marriage licenses.

Nevertheless, when Hillary and Janet marry in New York, I also believe that each of the remaining 49 Union states are Constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to said lesbian marriage, irrespective of the moral issues.

I am curious to see what you all think about this issue and whether you agree with me or if you detect serious flaws in my logic that make my position wrong and wrong-headed.

Bing

A happy man who is trying his best to come between two lesbians. 😮

[Bing]

All I can say is that the time is fast approaching that those with the means, just may have to throw the rascals out, so to speak.

God is on our side, so we have nothing to fear.

We will prevail!!!!

Bing