[BOBT12]

Sonik Fury wrote on Oct 16 2008, 06:36 PM:

Ridiculous!!!

[post=”5459″][/post]

Could this be so? Nevertheless, perhaps “admiralty” is a clue?

[BOBT12]

However, there is no mention of the unjust war that the U.S. exports to other nations to enforce all of the above, both at home and abroad.

Quote:

“Force without authority is an act of war.? “Locke

Quote:

A tyrant's whole reliance must be upon his soldiers he must increase them in proportion to his distrust of his people; which is a confession of mutual enmity: Neither is it enough that his soldiers oppress and famish his people, for his sake and their own (for both he and they are supported by the spoils of the people), but he must keep them as constantly employed as he can; because if they be not employed in plundering, invading, and shedding of blood, they will grow unfit for such beneficent and necessary work, and may probably degenerate into humanity and mercy; than which a more terrible change could not befall their royal master; so that in mere duty they must be constantly practicing mischief and rapine at home or abroad. [L] Cato's Letters, #73, p. 539.

Quote:

“The main point is that the US economy has been converted into a credit and debt scam aimed against the rest of the world, and backed up by military force. But the scheme is falling apart as the rest of the world is losing the ability and willingness to pay.”

[Stan Goff, writer, former U.S. Army sergeant. Interview, Truthout (7/16/2003)

Now, here at home, the Army acknowledges that the Northern Command may call upon the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team to help with civil unrest and crowd control.”

[BOBT12]

franklin wrote on Oct 12 2008, 01:02 PM:

The amazing thing is the forbearance of the American people with their corrupt federal and state governments.?

The Second Amendment was designed to deal with a violent and tyrannical government.?

If the government fails to respond to your petition…via the courts…and murders your family member (e.g. by not responding to an appeal) or threatens to murder you for making the petition…would the founders think self-defense is appropriate?? <_<

[post=”5435″][/post]

As usual, you are correct.

Quote:

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundation of our conferated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a coordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet… We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then … I will say, that against this every man should raise his voice, and more, should uplift his arm …

“Having found, from experience that impeachment is an impractical thing, a mere scarecrow, they consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion … An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of his own reasoning…

“A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independent of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” –Letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820

Emphasis added.

However, most people do not know this information, look at this article, the courts want to keep you from Googling this information. Look at how this website has been harassed just to keep operating.

Quote:

?Freedom of speech has always been encouraged or discouraged, according to the innocence or guilt of men in power.? ?[L] Cato?s Letters, #24, p. 178

These same forces, have work to dumb down the people for over a century, it will take some effort to get this information out to the people.

Quote:

?For one people undone by foreign invaders, ten have been undone by their own native rogues, who were entrusted to defend them.? [L] Cato?s Letters, #75, p. 551

[BOBT12]

Admin wrote on Oct 10 2008, 09:35 AM:

GOLD DEFAULT DEAD AHEAD: The COMEX and London Metal Exchange are living on borrowed time in their corrupt gold game. They sell paper gold, and precious little actual gold metal. See a refreshing straightforward interview aired on CNBC of all places (click here). It is by Jurg Kiener, CEO of Swiss Asia Capital. He points out the dual market for gold, one paper and one metal. He expects soon the US ?gambling price? gold market in COMEX and LME to default. By that he means a return suddenly to physical price determination. He is quoted to say THE GOLD PRICE WOULD DOUBLE VERY QUICKLY, LIKE IN DAYS AFTER THE EXPECTED METAL DEFAULT. One should expect the interview to be lifted and removed from their website within days, after they realize the explosive nature of his words.

Whole article………… http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editoria…/2008/1009.html

[post=”5410″][/post]

What can I say, buy silver and gold? Metal only, of course. :ph34r:

[BOBT12]

Author #5 wrote on Oct 10 2008, 10:53 AM:

See:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10504

[post=”5412″][/post]

Quote:

WMR has learned from knowledgeable sources within the US financial community that an alarming confidential and limited distribution document is circulating among senior members of Congress and their senior staff members that is warning of a bleak future for the United States if it does not quickly get its financial house in order. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is among those who have reportedly read the document.

The document is being called the “C & R” document because it reportedly states that if the United States defaults on loans and debt underwriting from China, Japan, and Russia, all of which are propping up the United States government financially, and the United States unilaterally cancels the debts, America can expect a war that will have disastrous results for the United States and the world. “Conflict” is the “C word” in the document.

The other scenario is that the federal government will be forced to drastically raise taxes in order to pay off debts to foreign countries to the point that the American people will react with a popular revolution against the government. “Revolution” is the document?s “R word.

Emphasis added.

What eles would one expect when you reduce a somewhat free population to total slavery?

Quote:

?The main point is that the US economy has been converted into a credit and debt scam aimed against the rest of the world, and backed up by military force. But the scheme is falling apart as the rest of the world is losing the ability and willingness to pay.? ?Stan Goff, writer, former U.S. Army sergeant. Interview, Truthout (7/16/2003)

[BOBT12]

franklin wrote on Oct 10 2008, 01:46 PM:

Question:?? 😎

If the Constitution is suspended…how does Bush remain commander in chief? Doesn't he become just another outlaw?

[post=”5413″][/post]

Yes!

However, how many people understand this simple idea? How many unlawful wars, and acts of war, have the U.S. (military, CIA, etc.) been involved in? What will make these followers of unlawful rules stop now?

Quote:

Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out “Crowd Control”

By Naomi Wolf, AlterNet. Posted October 8, 2008.

Members of Congress were told they could face martial law if they didn't pass the bailout bill. This will not be the last time.

Background: the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing “unruly individuals,” and the management of a national emergency. I am in Seattle and heard from the brother of one of the soldiers that they are engaged in exercises now. Amy Goodman reported that an Army spokesperson confirmed that they will have access to lethal and non lethal crowd control technologies and tanks.

George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the “War on Terror,” the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield.

He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the event of a loosely defined “insurrection” or many other “conditions” he has the power to identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus — habeas corpus prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial — in the event of an “insurrection.” With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or angry voters “insurgents” staging an “insurrection” is strengthened.

U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman of California said to Congress, captured on C-Span and viewable on YouTube, that individual members of the House were threatened with martial law within a week if they did not pass the bailout bill:

“The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. ? Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.”

If this is true and Rep. Sherman is not delusional, I ask you to consider that if they are willing to threaten martial law now, it is foolish to assume they will never use that threat again. It is also foolish to trust in an orderly election process to resolve this threat. And why deploy the First Brigade? One thing the deployment accomplishes is to put teeth into such a threat.

I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon for clarification:

“If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?”

“Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders.”

“But these orders are now legal?'”

“Correct.”

“If the President directs the First Brigade to arrest a bunch of voters, what would stop him?”

“Nothing. It would end up in courts but the action would have been taken.”

“If the President directs the First Brigade to kill civilians, what would stop him?”

“Nothing.”

“What would prevent him from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the Washington Post?”

“Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq — send a tank down a street in Washington and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they were firing at something else.”

“What happens to members of the First Brigade who refuse to take up arms against U.S. citizens?”

“They'd probably be treated as deserters as in Iraq: arrested, detained and facing five years in prison. In Iraq a study by Ann Wright shows that deserters — reservists who refused to go back to Iraq — got longer sentences than war criminals.”

“Does Congress have any military of their own?”

“No. Congress has no direct control of any military units. The Governors have the National Guard but they report to the President in an emergency that he declares.”

“Who can arrest the President?”

“The Attorney General can arrest the President after he leaves or after impeachment.”

[Note: Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has asserted it is possible for District Attorneys around the country to charge President Bush with murder if they represent districts where one or more military members who have been killed in Iraq formerly resided.]

“Given the danger do you advocate impeachment?”

“Yes. President Bush struck down Posse Comitatus — which has prevented, with a penalty of two years in prison, U.S. leaders since after the Civil War from sending military forces into our streets — with a 'signing statement.' He should be impeached immediately in a bipartisan process to prevent the use of military forces and mercenary forces against U.S. citizens”

“Should Americans call on senior leaders in the Military to break publicly with this action and call on their own men and women to disobey these orders?”

“Every senior military officer's loyalty should ultimately be to the Constitution. Every officer should publicly break with any illegal order, even from the President.”

“But if these are now legal. If they say, 'Don't obey the Commander in Chief,' what happens to the military?”

“Perhaps they would be arrested and prosecuted as those who refuse to participate in the current illegal war. That's what would be considered a coup.”

“But it's a coup already.”

“Yes.”

[BOBT12]

Admin wrote on Oct 8 2008, 06:08 PM:

Bush Putting Final Touches on Martial Law Plans

Wayne Madsen Report

October 8-10, 2008 — FEMA sources confirm coming martial law

WMR has learned from knowledgeable Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sources that the Bush administration is putting the final touches on a plan that would see martial law declared in the United States with various scenarios anticipated as triggers. The triggers include a continuing economic collapse with massive social unrest, bank closures resulting in violence against financial institutions, and another fraudulent presidential election that would result in rioting in major cities and campuses around the country.

In addition, Army Corps of Engineer sources report that the assignment of the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) to the Northern Command's U.S. Army North is to augment FEMA and federal law enforcement in the imposition of traffic controls, crowd control, curfews, enhanced border and port security, and neighborhood patrols in the event a national emergency being declared. The BCT was assigned to duties in Iraq before being assigned to the Northern Command.

On April 3, 2008, WMR reported on a highly-classified document regarding the martial law scenario: WMR has learned from knowledgeable sources within the US financial community that an alarming confidential and limited distribution document is circulating among senior members of Congress and their senior staff members that is warning of a bleak future for the United States if it does not quickly get its financial house in order. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is among those who have reportedly read the document. The document is being called the “C & R” document because it reportedly states that if the United States defaults on loans and debt underwriting from China, Japan, and Russia, all of which are propping up the United States government financially, and the United States unilaterally cancels the debts, America can expect a war that will have disastrous results for the United States and the world. “Conflict” is the “C word” in the document. The other scenario is that the federal government will be forced to drastically raise taxes in order to pay off debts to foreign countries to the point that the American people will react with a popular revolution against the government. “Revolution” is the document's “R word.

[post=”5399″][/post]

What a bloody surprise, he should have been impeached long ago. Hey it's still not too late, we can vote for impeachment, or concentration camps. What do ya think folks?

[BOBT12]

franklin wrote on Oct 7 2008, 02:10 PM:

One of the defining clinical characteristics of psychotic thought disorder is the ability to live comfortably with a contradiction as if it didn't exist.  (Think here of the decider's statement “War is Peace”.)

One of the defining characteristics of truth is logical thinking…which according to Aristotle is the absence of contradictions.  Contradictions are always false and never lead to truth.

The following contradiction is beautiful in its elegant simplicity…it meets the criteria for both psychotic thinking and falsehood…

Quote:

A definitive court case on the issue of free speech and political expression is Branch Ministries Inc. versus Rossotti. In that case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the ban on political activity.

The court wrote: “The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501?(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose.”

The contradiction is relying on the Constitution to uphold a compelling government interest in suppressing free speech.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were provided to the federal government to curb or prohibit its compelling interest in suppressing the rights of the people.

So a court that says it is constitutional to do what the Constitution prohibits (Amendment I, clause 2) is demonstrating psychotic thinking and convincing itself of falsehood.

Such a judgment can only be void.

It would have been truthful and not contradictory for the court to inform the litigants that they lost their case because they gave up their rights for a privilege that they did not need and now they have to play by the rules. Constitutional whining does not change the fact that they sought and applied for 501[c](3) forms, rules, regulations and restrictions.

In such a judgment the court rightfully would be holding the litigants to their agreement to comply with 501[c](3). However, the judgment as rendered not only contradicts itself and leads to a falsehood…it has nothing to do with the facts where the litigants demonstrated…by their misguided application for 501[c](3) status…that they themselves had a compelling interest to function under that statute.

That old saying might be true…a judge is a lawyer who wasn't smart enough to make partner. (I don't think there are any comparable sayings for 501[c](3) ministers <_< , but maybe there should be.

[post=”5385″][/post]

Emphasis added.

Good work, franklin. However, it is quite obvious that the court is actually displaying the unconstitutional force that they themselves are encouraging in order to require churches sign up or lose their property. This, in fact, is coercion and duress! If the churches do not file the 501[c](3) they may get to go to court. Of course, since we are talking taxes, they may be denied this right, too.

[BOBT12]

rbccmrn wrote on Oct 4 2008, 11:20 AM:

Has anyone read this?

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbar…e_20081001.html

[post=”5363″][/post]

Quote:

For several years, the federal government has been accumulating to itself more and more authority that was historically understood to reside within the states and local communities. More and more, our police departments have taken on the image and tactics of the armed forces. And to a greater and greater degree, the rights and liberties of the American people are being sacrificed on the altar of “national security.” It seems to me that to now ascribe law enforcement duties to the U.S. Army only serves to augment the argument that America is fast approaching police state status.

If Hurricane Katrina is the template that our federal government is using as a model for future events, Heaven help us! Do readers remember how National Guard troops were used to confiscate the personal firearms of isolated and vulnerable civilians shortly after that hurricane devastated the New Orleans area? Do you remember how representatives of the federal government were calling upon pastors and ministers to act as spokesmen for gun confiscation? Is this what the new Army brigade is preparing for? And do President Bush and his military planners envision an even broader role for military troops on American soil?

Add to the above rumors of thousands of plastic caskets–along with thousands of portable prison cells–being shipped and stored across the country, and one is left to ask, Exactly what is it that our federal government is planning?

I think there is an even bigger question, What exactly will members of our armed forces do if and when they are commanded to seize Americans' firearms, arrest them at gun point, or even fire upon them? How many soldiers and Marines love liberty and constitutional government enough to resist such orders, should they be given? And how many officers would resist issuing such orders?

Remember, it is the job of the armed forces to kill people and blow up things, not to do police work. Then again, Presidential administrations from both major parties have been using the U.S. military as U.N. “peacekeepers” for decades now. So, was all of this preparation for what is yet to take place in the United States? –Chuck Baldwin, “U.S. Army Troops To Serve As U.S. Policemen?” (10/1/2008)

Yes, I think the numerous unconstitutional wars were intended to set the stage for what we are witnessing today. The monster that the U.S. has set upon the world is now returning to its point of origin.

Quote:

Concerned about the dangers of unchecked executive power, the Founding Fathers deliberately assigned Congress the sole authority to make war. But the last time Congress did so was in 1941, after the Japanese attack on Peal Harbor – since then, every president from Harry Truman to George W. Bush has used military force in pursuit of imperial objective without congressional authorization. In vivid detail, War Powers recounts this story of subversion from above. Drawing on congressional hearings, Supreme Court opinions, media reports, and scholarly accounts, legal historian Peter Irons examines how the Constitution has been trampled upon as presidents have usurped a shared, solemn power – eschewing congressional approval and often suspending civil liberties in the process. ?Professor Peter Irons, ?War Powers? (2005)

Quote:

“The American Empire? An oxymoron.A compelling lust for political, economic and military hegemony over the rest of the world, divorced from moral considerations? Suggesting that to Americans is akin to telling them of one's UFO abduction, except that they're more likely to believe the abduction story.” -William Blum, Rogue State, 2000

[BOBT12]

Author #2 wrote on Sep 24 2008, 01:13 PM:

The corrupt feds are trying to silence Dave Champion's free speech.  In a contempt hearing early Sept, 2008, Dave was persecuted because he was falsely accused of violating an injunction order preventing him from collaborating with “nontaxpayers” not subject to the I.R.C.  What a joke!

See Sept 6 and Sept 13 radio shows:

http://davechampionshow.com/archives.php

[post=”5309″][/post]

This quite aggravating

Quote:

Andrew Jackson: “One man with courage makes a majority.”

The United States 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals prostitutes itself in the Larken Rose case.

Dave lays out what's been going on in his court battle with the IRS – and what's about to happen!

China shut down civilian cellular service during protests. Only a matter of time here?

Dave responds to a listener email regarding “Black English”.

A listener asks, “What actually is 'liability'?”

Emphasis added.

Looks like we will be getting more imports from China.

[BOBT12]

Those are great questions, Admin.

Of course, I have posed many of them to the IRS; and I will use more of them as the opportunity arises.

Quote:

“No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.”

— Edmund A. Opitz

[BOBT12]

Wow! It would be great to see a state put this in operation.

[BOBT12]

Admin wrote on Sep 16 2008, 09:28 PM:

The full IRM is not online.  Several sections are deliberately hidden and there is no way to obtain them, even through FOIA.  We can't say what those sections are.

[post=”5283″][/post]

Thus, there is no way that the public is able to be held accountable to this document, nor is there any just basis that it should be used against the people.

Quote:

All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either. -Paine 

Quote:

? Every great robber styles as sedition and faction every utterance that subtracts from his admiration, that interrupts his wild and revenous schemes or that attempts to preserve that rights of the people.? -Cato

Quote:

?Government has of itself no rights; the trusts delegated to it are altogether duties.? ?Paine Rights of Man, 184

Quote:

If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed

in our meat and in our drink,

in our necessaries and our comforts,

in our labors and our amusements,

for our callings and our creeds,

as the people of England are, our people, like them,

must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four,

and give the earnings of fifteen of these

to the government for their debts and daily expenses;

And the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread,

we must live, as they now do,

on oatmeal and potatoes,

have no time to think,

no means of calling the mismanagers to account;

but be glad to obtain subsistence

by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks

of our fellow sufferers;

And this is the tendency of all human governments.

A departure from principle in one instance

becomes a precedent for a second,

that second for a third,

and so on till the bulk of the society

is reduced to be mere automatons of misery,

to have no sensibilities left

but for sinning and suffering…

And the forehorse of this frightful team is

public debt. Taxation follows that,

and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

-Thomas Jefferson

Emphasis added.

Quote:

The safety of the people is the supreme law…. The safety of the people cannot be judged but by the safety of every individual…. Unjust is State power where the law is either uncertain or unknown. — Maxims of Common Law

[BOBT12]

'Admin' wrote on 'Sep:

QUESTION:

______________________

Sent: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:52:32 -0500

From: Frank XXX

To: XXXXXX@XXXX.XXXX

Subject: Govt a thief or “Public Officer”

Dear sir,

In the memo titled,

Why your government is a thief or you are a 'public officer, Form #05.008

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

it talks about attorneys as being “public officers.” Now it would be my understanding that only FEDERAL attorneys who take a FEDERAL oath of office would be “public officers,” not Union state attorneys.

I have found some upstanding (yes, upstanding) attorneys interested in pursuing the IRS. I have a presentation scheduled in their law offices in the coming weeks. I will be presenting the “trade or business” scam and some revealing history about our system of taxation. The goal being to spread the truth about the scam within the legal community, and initiate possible action against private sector payers who are misapplying the law. I of course would be proceeding pro se, but it's good to have experts for advice/coaching.

These are Texas attorneys and they take a Union state oath. It would be my understanding that they are NOT “public officers,” and as such, not required to be part of the “trade or business” scam. I interpreted from my reading of the “Govt thief/Public Officer” memo that ALL attorneys must in fact be “public officers,” even if their oath is a Union state oath.

I would like to communicate the proper information to them regarding the “public officer” status. I would say that a Texas sworn attorney is NOT a “public officer.” Have I misinterpreted this?

I understand this does not constitute legal or binding advice in any form whatever.

Thanks for your consideration,

Frank

San Antonio, TX

p.s. I'm happy to say the service refunded everything from my private-sector pay this tax year in accordance with the law. This, due in large part from what I've learned on your site. Thank you for your awesome ministry!!!

_______________________________

ANSWER:

The following is our own understanding of this situation based on study of the law. This is not legal advice and only describes how we would apply the facts to our own situation. This is an opinion and a belief, not a fact. Whether this belief is consistent with reality and prevailing law is for you to decide based on your own reading of the law. As a consenting member or reader of these forums or of this website, our disclaimer requires you to you agree to take complete, exclusive, and personal responsibily for all your choices and actions and not to blame us for anything.

Some answers:

1. The Internal Revenue Code does not define WHICH entity the “taxpayer” is a public officer within: state or federal or both. The implications are obvious, because the only thing the feds can litigate for are their own officers and their own corporation. Hence, the “public officer” mentioned in the I.R.C. would appear to be a federal and not state public officer. This is also discussed in:

Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

2. An attorney who litigates or is licensed only in state court is only a public officer within the state government and not the federal government. An attorney who litigates in or is licensed by the federal governmetn is a public officer within the federal government.

3. Most state constitutions and/or statutory law forbid anyone from simultaneously serving as a public officer of the state govenrment while ALSO being a public officer in the federal government. Any deviation from this requirement is a violation of the separation of power doctrine. This is to prevent conflicts of interest and the violation of the biblical mandate against serving two masters. That is precisely why it is a conflict of interest for any state judge or state public officer to also be a federal “taxpayer”: He is violating the state constitution in most cases.

Glad to hear about your success. Keep up the great work and keep us posted!

[post=”5266″][/post]

This is great news, and clearly demonstrates the importance of this website, and outlets like it, but also the importance of supporting the ideas contained in the First Amendment.

Quote:

“Freedom of speech has always been encouraged or discouraged, according to the innocence or guilt of men in power.”

[Cato's Letters, #24, p. 178]

[BOBT12]

franklin wrote:

And outrage seems to be one of the underlying themes of your post BobT. Hopefully it'll catch on and spread like a virus.

Franklin

Indeed.

Quote:

“Confusion and corruption are the main supports of tyranny.” Cato

Finally,

Quote:

“Beyond our own effort, life, liberty, and property have no other guard but friends.? ” Cato?s Letters, #62, p. 434

Thank you, friend.

BOBT