Bing
Forum Replies Created
BOBT12 wrote on Apr 29 2005, 04:50 PM:How will the school system get your children hooked on drugs, what can you do about it?Quote:What to do if the school board says:“you have to put your ADD child on drugs.”
1. Get them to put it in writing and sign it. (They are prescribing drugs without a license.) Do not be intimidated by the school board, and always remember that they work for you. Treat them as “your” employee and hold them accountable. They do not know what is best for your child, you do. You are the parent. Parents raise kids. School boards only run schools.
2. If they tell you “The law says if your child is disruptive in class you have to put the child on Ritalin,” ask them to show you the law in writing. The law will usually say that if your child is physically endangering other children, then you must seek medical help or special classes. Remind them that medical help doesn?t always mean drugs.
3. If they tell you to sign a release for your child?s medical records because it?s the law, again ask to see the law in writing. You are the parent, you raise kids, they are the school board, and they deal in education?
http://www.resultsproject.net/schoolsay.html
More information:
http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?p=26830#post26830
[post=”1384″][/post]Make no mistake, the federal, state, and local governments prefer that American children are drugged at such an early age because it makes it that much easier to brainwash and control them when they get older.
Millions of teenagers have been on Ritalin for 6-7-8+ years and many of them are in the process of trying to get off the drugs, and they cann't. They have their idiot parents to blame.
Crime and young adult suicide are both going to skyrocket over the next ten years.
You watch and see.
Bing
The short answer is, “I dunno”. You raise some excellent questions.
I simply don't know whether and to what extent, the requirements for getting a passport have changed since 1835.
Although I am told it is relatively simple to do, my research/writing plate is full, so I have not learned how to sheperdize a case to see if it is overturned, so here too I say, “I dunno”.
Re: your 3rd question, in the case cited, the US supreme Court said that the documents used to get the passport are better than the actual passport. But check this out, one can get a passport by applying in person with absolutely NO DOCUMENTS, other than to have two witnesses appear with you Before a USA Passport Official, and they sign an affidavit saying that you are who you say that you are. So, this NO-DOC Passport Application procedure seems to expose just how sinister the US Congress is with their proposed law for a NATIONAL ID.
I was informed some time ago last year, by one of the nation's foremost Constitutional and TAX scholars/legal researchers, that the Secretary of State no longer issues the Certificate of Non-citizen national. They told him that his USA Passport is his proof. At least this is what I remember being told. (Author #2, correct me if I am wrong) 🙂
Bing
Cool! Thanks.
Say Sonik, what I am interested in is what the State supreme Courts have said, regarding one's right to travel.
Is there any chance that you have that info?
Thanks.
Bing
- Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 21 2005, 11:49 PM:Again, not to be verbose, all I am just trying to say, is why use little state supreme Court cases (with respect to US supreme Court) on such BIG issues (right to travel)?
Sonik Speed
[post=”1365″][/post]Sonik, I think you are missing the point. There is nothing “little” about state Supreme Court opinions. And suggesting as much is inaccurate.
“Big Issues” are precisely the types of issues that make it up to the state Supreme Courts and the US supreme Court.
I would submit that state Supreme Court decisions are extremely powerful if one is attempting to prove a fact or a series of facts, or determine the position of the state's HIGHEST judicial authority.
Within each of the respective states/countries/sister states, the state Supreme Court opinions carry substantial weight and should not be dismissed so lightly.
Granted, the US supreme Court's decisions ARE SUPPOSED to carry more weight, and that fact is obvious.
Bing
Sonik, sir, maybe I was not clear.
You see, I proceed from the premise that each of the 50 states that comprise the American Union, are, in point of fact, separate nations. See the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, definition of “foreign state”, and 28 USC 297 a and b. I know that you already know this.
Now, within each “nation”(e.g sister state), the decisions of the state Supreme Courts are paramount, to the extent that those decisions do not contravene the USA Constitution and/or standing decisions issued by the US supreme Court.
Right now, one of the research projects that I have been working on, is that I am compiling state Supreme Court decisions that deal with the issues of the limited nature of the US Government's jurisdiction; cession of territorial jurisdiction by the several states to the federal government; and, the meaning and interpretation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the USA Constitution.
We must NEVER, EVER, forget that “all law is territorial”.
And what my research aims to do is cobble together what the state Supreme Courts have decided, and prove that it is supported by and consistent with what both the US Sup. Ct. has ruled, as well as being entirely consistent with the legal opinions issued by the US. Attorney General.
By linking these state Supreme Court decisions directly to US Supreme Court decisions, and then taking that information, and relating it directly to and corroborating it with the legal Opinions of the U.S. Attorney Generals, well, ya end up with a very compelling document that ya can use to prove certain facts.
What I was indirectly alluding to above, is that a Citizen of one state, in this instance, me, has a Constitutional Right to rely upon the decisions issued by the Supreme Courts of the other 49 States.
I wasn't dissing the US supreme Court as you seem to suggest. Quite the contrary.
So far, what I have discovered in my early research, is that there is remarkable continuity from the early 1800s which runs all the way up through the US Sup. Ct. decision in Lopez, from 1995/96.
Many of us in the Tax Honesty Movement can easily get lost in the minutie of laws, regulations, etc, but when you cut through all of that stuff, it all, and I mean ALL, boils down to Jurisdiction. (emphasis only)
Jurisdiction and the lack thereof, is where it is at.
Jurisdiction is the fulcrum and the pivot of the best legal arguement that we in the Tax Honesty Movement have in our arsenal.
If one wins the jurisdictional arguement vs. the corrupt IRS, as they say in tennis, “Game. Set. Match”.
Bing
With all due respect to my esteemed cybor cohort, Sonik Speed, inasmuch as the several states of the American Union are foreign with respect to the federal government and they are foreign with respect to another sister state, I am of the opinion that the decisions of each of the respective state Supreme Courts, are entirely worthy of being cited and relied upon by Citizens within that particular state where the Supreme Court sits, as well as by Citizens of the other 49 States.
The USA Constitution stipulates in Art. 4, Sec. 1, that:
Quote:“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. . .”Thus, in an effort to prove a legal principle or a fact about say, the meaning of a certain section of the USA Constitution, a Citizen of Florida may rely upon the decisions made by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts.
And when one can link up and string together a series of state Supreme Court decisions on a particular topic, whose rulings reaffirm the standing decisions of other state Supreme Courts, as well as the U.S. supreme Court, well then, one's legal argument is simply that much more compelling and persuasive.
Bing
Ahahahahahahahahahaha!!! LMAO!! 😀
Thanks.
Bing
- Fiddo wrote on Mar 9 2005, 03:15 AM:Hi all, here is another gem to pass on…
Hertel: no IRS authority to levy wages of private citizens in private sector
Enjoy 😀
[post=”1219″][/post]Thanks.
Yes, Hertel's letter is extremely powerful, and it is made even more so when it is directly tied into the series of U.S. supreme Court cases in which the Court ruled that a Citizen may rely upon the admissions and representations of government officials and government agencies, in order to sustain a position. And when one does so, the government is essentially estopped. 😀
Bing
Thanks! 🙂
The IRS's Dirty Dozen list merely proves that the IRS propaganda machine is alive and that it continues to spew lies to further the IRS's goal of defrauding the American People and tricking them into paying the IRS money,and ven though there is no enacted statute or implementing regulations that make American Citizens liable for paying income taxes to the IRS.
THAT IS THE TRUTH!!
The IRS's lying, deceptive practices shock the conscience.
Bing
I am still hard pressed to believe that GM has a corporate debt of of $300 billion.
Until I actually see it on their balance sheet, I simply do not believe it.
Show me a GM balance sheet.
Bing
Weis, sir, I don't understand what it is that you think that you have discovered.
Sir, can you explain it in plain English?
Thanks.
Bing
Sir, first of all, thank you for standing up and defending and protecting the USA Constitution. Bravo!!!
If you are who I think you are, I met you at the National Press Club and I shook your hand in DC back in July 2004. 🙂
Like you, as an American Citizen, I am also a non-taxpayer.
It appears to me that you have done a very good job laying the foundation. Press on, sir, press on.
I am not an attorney and this post is not legal advice but is for hypothetical discussion purposes only. 😉
I only wish to add that you may want to also consider sending some or all of your documentation to the IRS's top lawyers at 1111 Constitution Ave., in Washington, DC. Tell them politely that, you have a fundamantal due process right to be advised as to what the law requires of you. Inform them that you are willing to pay to the IRS what you may owe to them, provided that the IRS first cite you the enacted statutes and implementing regulations that makes American Citizen's liable for paying the IRS income taxes.
Finally, if you haven't done so already,cite the US Statutes at Large, Volume 53, Part 1, Internal Revenue Code, approved February 10, 1939, page 1, Section 4, which asserts that the 1939 Internal Revenue Code was repealed:
Quote:“(a) The Internal Revenue Code, as hereinafter set forth, is intended to include all general laws of the United States and parts of such laws, relating exclusively to internal revenue and (2) of a temporary nature if embraced in said Internal Revenue Title.? In furtherance of that purpose, all such laws and parts of laws codified herein, to the extent they relate exclusively to internal revenue, are repealed, effective, except as provided in section 5, on the day following the date of the enactment of this act. . .”and then directly link this section of the Statutes at Large, to 26 USC 7851 (a)(1)(A)and 26 USC 7851 (a)(6)(A), which proves that the Internal Revenue Code's enforcement provisions are inoperable because Subtitle F only goes into effect on the day after the IRC is enacted into positive law. And since the IRC has not been enacted into positive law, the Enforcement Regulations of the IRC are not lawfully enforceable against American Citizens inside the 50 states who are not engaged in a “trade or business” or certain other excise taxable activities.
And to complete the circle, prove to the IRS and ask them to explain why the implementing regulations for Subtitle F of 26 USC, either do not exist or else they are cross referenced to 27 CFR instead of 26 CFR, as they should be. Use the CFR Parrallel Table of Authorities & Rules to prove this conclusive fact.
In this connection, it is important for you to deny and rebut their incorrect presumption that you are, or were, engaged in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms.
Provide the IRS with the citation from 1 CFR 21.21 [c] which makes it unlawful for one federal agency (in this instance, the IRS) to cross reference to the regulations promulgated by another federal agency (i.e ATF). In the example above, the IRS wrongfully cross referenced to regulations issued by the ATF. YOu may also want to exploit the fact that no Implementing Regulations for IRC Subtitle F exist, by directly relating that fact to two US supreme Court cases, Calif. Banking Assoc. v. Schultz and U.S. v. Mersky, in which the Court ruled that a statute without implementing regulations does not have the force of law and can be ignored.
{NOTE: you already know that the IRC is NOT a statute in the true meaning of that term}
Good luck.
Bing
Why not simply use a USA passport as one's ID?
Bing
