As my esteemed cyber cohort, ADMIN., points out, the real TERRORIST, are the corrupted Federal, State, and related Law Enforcement officials who have lied to the print and broadcast media in order to make it appear that American Citizens who know the law and who know their legal rights, are physically violent and should be considered dangerous to the rest of American society.
 
I strongly encourage everyone to carefully read and study the SEDM Form 08.018 that was cited by ADMIN in her post immediately above. 
 
Further, I also want to suggest to ADMIN that consideration be given to incorporating SEDM Form 08.018, into and made an integral part of the Path to Freedom document and the Fam Guardian Membership Agreement, if it is not already.
 
SEDM Form 08.018, section 2.2, page 34, line 33, corretly asserts and concludes that “In other words, all American Citizens are sovereign. . .”  In this connection, I just want to also remark that there is PROOF, right from the US Government itself, that clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that All American Citizens are sovereign, to wit:
 
1.  The 64th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Reports 443, in Volume 3, Titled, “Election of Delegate From the District of Columbia”, Page 5, ADMITS that
 
“. . .The United States is a representative Government.  Congress meets in the Capital.  Senators and Representatives come yearly to   perform their legislative duties, refreshed by contact with their home people, and because thereof better able to represent their views.  Each of their constituents is a sovereign citizen; he is a part of the Government, State and National; he has a voice in the selection of his officers and, either directly or indirectly through his representatives, makes and enforces all laws, State and National, affecting life, liberty, and property. . .”
 
2.  Additional legal evidence, in the form of admissions made by the US Supreme Court, also buttresses and contains conclusive proof that SEDM Form 08.018 cited above by ADMIN, is accurate and on point, to wit:
 
In Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 257, the US Supreme Court ruled that “In our country the people are sovereign and the Government may not sever its relationship to the people, by taking away their citizenship. . .”
 
and then, at 387 U.S. 253, 268, the Supreme Court, in a very powerful conclusion, and one in which it can arguably said, puts the corrupted IRS and US Congress in it’s place by exposing the legal games the IRS and Congress play with words such as “U.S. citizen”, without clearly delineating whether they mean US citizen under the Constitution, or US citizen under federal statute, to wit:
 
“. . . The very nature of our free Government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which  a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.  We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to and does, protect every citizen of this Nation, against a congressional, forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give this citizen, that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.”
 
3.  See also, Fam Guardian Cites by Topic: Sovereignty, for numerous authoritative cites that are entirely consistent with ADMIN’s post as well as my own.
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/sovereignty.htm
 
Bing

I am not at all surprised.

I tell ya, in general, governments are not worth a piece of crap.

Lets not forget, early on in the 2nd iraq war, several British agents, dressed in Arab garb, were driving around Iraq with automatic weapons, shooting and killing innocent Iraqi civilians.

They were captured by Iraqis and taken to an Iraqi prison

A few days later, US Special Forces and British commandos, using tanks and armored vehicles, crashed down the walls of the prison and freed the Brits

The purpose of the Brits dressed as Arabs and shooting Arabs, was to get the Iraqi populace to welcome Allied troops into Iraq as protectors

Spread the word.

For starters, see US Supreme Court decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 US 914, which is quoted in the treatise cited by ADMIN above
 
I also suggest you review the CRS treatise on statutory construction located at
  
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/LegalSelfHelp/CRS-97-589-Statutory%20Interpretation-General%20Principles%20and%20Recent%20Trends.pdf
 
Good luck
 
Bing

NEO, my brother from a different mother!!!

Good to hear from you!!

I do not know the answer to your question, but here is what I do know.

It sounds as if their service of process was defective. If such is the case, file a Motion to Strike the undated letter from evidence, but before you do that, try and prove that the opposition committed fraud upon the court. And if you can make a decent argument that more than one court or govt official was involved in committing fraud upon the court, so much the better

If the opposition committed fraud upon the court (and note here, even a judge or one of his employees can commit fraud upon the court), said fraud voids the court of all jurisdiction, ab initio.

If you have enough evidence, make the allegation that fraud upon the court has been committed. Put the facts in a supporting affidavit.  And file a Motion requesting some remedy that you think you are entitled to.

If the undated document was prepared by a govt official, you should consider having a computer forensic expert examine the hard drive of the pc that was used to prepare the undated letter.

NEO, keep us updated of your fight.

PS. To ADMIN, I think the “fraud upon the court” issue is a ripe one that has been little used and exploited by the larger Tax Honesty Movement, in their offensive battles with the corrupted IRS and lying federal Government. Is this a subject that FG should explore more fully, by creating a new Forum category and soliciting input from FG Members?

Ultimately, perhaps with FG Forum input, we can create a new legal treatise dealing with “Fraud Upon the Court”

I have no clue how long law school should be, but I do know that Law Schools should teach year long courses on the limits of federal jurisdiction; US Supreme Court opinions on Freedom and Liberty
 
I never went to law school, but in many respects, I know better than alot of lawyers, how to craft legal strategies and how to win legal arguments by relying on US Government admissions. And the few times in past 15 yrs, when I found myself involved in civil cases in US District Courts,  either by myself, or as part of a team of regular civilians who were NON-BAR attorneys fighting to preserve one’s personal liberty and to defend the USA Constitution, we kicked the butts of any number of US Government lawyers
 
No kidding
 
I have been studying law for a long time, and I have yet to meet a lawyer who understands jurisdictional law as well as I do (Special props to Dr. Ed Rivera and FG and SEDM for teaching me)
 
As a general rule, nearly all lawyers, but especially government lawyers are dishonest

PGB, outstanding job!!
 
Thanks for sharing and having the courage to stand up and defend your fundamental rights.
 
I only wish to add that you also could have cited the conclusive fact that your constitutional right and freedom of locomotion via driving on public roads, can not be violated by the police, and when such violation occurs, it amounts to violations of your due process of law rights; as well as violating your right to equal protection under the law.
 
Stated differently, no government actor or agent, is lawfully permitted to punish an American citizen for exercising their fundamental constitutional rights. The IRS, DMV, and local police, etc.,  can not lawfully punish a person for doing something that the law (in this case the Organic Law), permits them to do.
 
To wit: 
 

“to punish a person because he has done what the law allows violates due process,…” see North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 395 U.S. 738,

See also,   Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 US  357, 363

“To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort, see North Carolina v. Pearce, supra at 397 U. S. 738 (opinion of Black, J.), and for an agent of the State to pursue a course of action whose objective is to penalize a person’s reliance on his legal rights is “patently unconstitutional.” Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, supra at 412 U.S. 32-33, n. 20. See United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570.
…”

 
Please keep us informed
 
Thanks
 
Bing

WOW!!!

Simply awesome

I often wondered and marveled at the fact that Saudi Arabia, a Muslim country where the ruling elite hate Christians, has hardly no potable water supplies

And that they have had to spend billions of $$$ building desalinization plants to convert salty sea water into drinking water.