fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
See the following SHORT forms that you can give to the loan officer:
1. Why You Aren't Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf
2. Why It is Illegal for Me to Request or Use a “Taxpayer Identification Number”, Form #04.205
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Withholding/WhyTINIllegal.pdf
These are offsite links and we aren't responsible for them or answering questions about them, but they are very useful.
-
BobT12,
As far as the proper role of juries, the following Jury Summons Response, in section 1, powerfully illustrates the proper role of a fully informed jury:
Jury Summons Response, Form #06.015, Section 1: Status of This Request to Act as a Jurist, Acrobat p. 4
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
I love the language there. Well done, SEDM. Below is a retype of that language.
_______________________________________
1. I will insist that every right asserted by the government in a case involving the government as either plaintiff or defendant shall also be possessed by the opponent of the government. This is an unavoidable consequence of having a government of finite, delegated powers only. Such EQUAL powers include:
1.1. Sovereign immunity.1.2. The right to bear arms, firearms, etc.
1.3. The right to establish franchises or anti-franchises by the same mechanisms used by the government.
2. I will insist that if the requirement for equal protection is violated, that the alleged “government” as party to the suit in question is not a government, but rather a private corporation operating in equity.
3. I will enforce the separation of powers against the government by nullifying any attempt to enforce anything but the following constitutional subject matters within a sovereign state of the Union:
3.1. Postal fraud. See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution..3.2. Counterfeiting under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution.
3.3. Treason under Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
3.4. Interstate commercial crimes under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
3.5. Slavery, involuntary servitude, or peonage under the Thirteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §1994, 18 U.S.C. §1581. and 18 U.S.C. §1589(3).
“Other authorities to the same effect might be cited. It is not open to doubt that Congress may enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by direct legislation, punishing the holding of a person in slavery or in involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime. In the exercise of that power Congress has enacted these sections denouncing peonage, and punishing one who holds another in that condition of involuntary servitude. This legislation is not limited to the territories or other parts of the strictly national domain, but is operative in the states and wherever the sovereignty of the United States extends. We entertain no doubt of the validity of this legislation, or of its applicability to the case of any person holding another in a state of peonage, and this whether there be municipal ordinance or state law sanctioning such holding. It operates directly on every citizen of the Republic, wherever his residence may be.”
[Clyatt v. U.S., 197 U.S. 207 (1905)]
4. I will insist that rights in relation to the government are “unalienable” as declared in the Declaration of Independence, which means that they cannot be sold, transferred, or bargained away through any commercial process, including any license, franchise, or contract:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -“[/i][Declaration of Independence]
The word “unalienable” is defined as follows:
“Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”[Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693]
5. If the case involves a United States District Court or United States Circuit Court, I will insist that the the court is not an Article III Court, but a franchise or property court that can only lawfully officiate over federal property, franchises, and territory pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
“The United States district court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed.It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, § 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.
The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.”
[Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, (1922)]
6. I will insist that if the government is party to any suit and it does seek to enforce any license, privilege, or franchise against a private party, that:
6.1. The government produce evidence of consent to participate in writing.6.2. That the party consenting maintained a domicile on federal territory not protected by the Constitution at the time he or she consented.
6.3. That if the government violates the above two constraints, it implicitly waives sovereign immunity because it is not acting as a de jure government if operating upon lands protected by the Constitution or upon those domiciled and present on said lands. Rather, it is operating in equity like any other private corporation because operating outside of its corporate charter and trust indenture, the U.S. Constitution:
See also Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 369 (1943) (“`The United States does business on business terms'”) (quoting United States v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, 270 U.S. 527, 534 (1926)); Perry v. United States, supra at 352 (1935) (“When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. There is no difference . . . except that the United States cannot be sued without its consent“) (citation omitted); United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53, 66 (1877) (“The United States, when they contract with their citizens, are controlled by the same laws that govern the citizen in that behalf“); Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389, 398 (1875) (explaining that when the United States “comes down from its position of sovereignty, and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals there“).
See Jones, 1 Cl.Ct. at 85 (“Wherever the public and private acts of the government seem to commingle, a citizen or corporate body must by supposition be substituted in its place, and then the question be determined whether the action will lie against the supposed defendant“); O'Neill v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 823, 826 (1982) (sovereign acts doctrine applies where, “[w]ere [the] contracts exclusively between private parties, the party hurt by such governing action could not claim compensation from the other party for the governing action”). The dissent ignores these statements (including the statement from Jones, from which case Horowitz drew its reasoning literally verbatim), when it says, post at 931, that the sovereign acts cases do not emphasize the need to treat the government-as-contractor the same as a private party.
7. I will nullify and invalidate the enforcement of any franchise, license, or privilege outside of federal territory or against those not domiciled on federal territory because it constitutes:
7.1. An unconstitutional invasion of the sovereign states and a deprivation of a republican government in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.7.2. An unconstitutional deprivation of equal protection mandated by Article 4, Sections 1 and 2; Fourteenth Amendment Section 1; and the Declaration of Independence.
7.3. The establishment of an unconstitutional Title of Nobility in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution.
On this subject, the U.S. Supreme Court held:
“Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.”
[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]
8. I reserve the right and will insist on exercising the right as a jurist to judge both the facts and the law.
9. I will insist on my right to read and interpret the law while serving as a jurist, including accessing the law library while I am serving.
10. I will insist that the judge answer my questions about the law as a jurist on the record.
11. I will insist that the context and definition of every geographical “word of art” such as “State” and “United States” be disclosed to every party involved in the proceeding by the judge on the record.
12. I will insist that if this matter involves any government franchise, privilege, or license, such as
12.1. Income taxes.12.2. Motor vehicle violations.
12.3. Social Security.
12.4. Statutory (but not constitutional) “U.S. citizen” status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401, which is a public officer in the government.
. .that none of the jurists, prosecutors, or judges may participate in said franchises because they have a conflict of interest as a recipient of the “benefits” and “privileges” incident to said franchises in violation of 18 U.S.C. §201, 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455.
“And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous.”
[Exodus 23:8, Bible, NKJV]
“He who is greedy for gain troubles his own house, but he who hates bribes will live.”[Prov. 15:27, Bible, NKJV]
“Surely oppression destroys a wise man's reason. And a bribe debases the heart.”[Ecclesiastes 7:7, Bible, NKJV]
-
The entity that offers that is a private, non-profit organization not assocated with any government. You could have found that out yourself by visiting their website or calling them and asking them that. Please be more proactive and post the ANSWER, instead of the question, to this forum next time. This is a team effort and everyone who participates should feel obligated to add something useful to these forums.
-
Call the place you send and ask when they are going to send it. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
-
Dear Truthsrevealed,
Thanks! 🙄
You are correct. The link has been fixed. Keep up the good work.
-
A place to start is t ask the bank if they give loans to foreigners from other countries who don't have numbers. One bank told us that they do. The next question would be why they are discriminating against you? That really gets them squirming.
We called the credit bureaus and asked them what numbers they can use to keep your credit history. They admitted that they could also use passport numbers instead of SSNs. Give them your passport number obtained without an SSN. If they argue, hand them SSA form 521 with the number removed that you sent in with the proof of service, proving that you don't have a number and terminated any presumption of lawful participation. This is part of the following:
Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Em…stIndenture.pdf
42 USC 408(a)(8) makes it a crime to discriminate against those who refuse to use identifying numbers. Tell them they are commititng a crime to compel the use of SSNs.
-
The older, the better and the more versions you have to compare, the better. Stuff around the turn of the century before 1909 is the best. We have all versions of Black's up to the sixth in electronic, searchable form and we compare them. Some of those versions before 75 years ago, which is the copyright clock, are availble as part of the SEDM Member Subscription Library:
http://sedm.org/Subscriptions.htm
Please don't ask us personally to share our library with you. You are on your own.
-
Excellent! Thanks!
🙄
-
See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Requires Your Consent, Sections 12 through 12.4:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…ForTaxation.htm
The above information is also contained in its entirety in the following VERY important document.
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Sections 20 to 20.4
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
If you are implementing the NRA position, you must FIRST satisfy all the criteria for becoming a member at:
Member Agreement, Form #01.001
http://sedm.org/Memb…erAgreement.pdf
and you should be following the following:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
You should not USE any SEDM materials if you do not become a member and follow the path to freedom.
-
Franklin,
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think that was your intention, but I wanted to defend the credibility of this website with the truth and evidence as you suggested that everyone should do.
The materials on this website have benefitted and improved tremendously over the years because of debates on these forums surrounding the evidence provided here. The best way to learn a subject is to argue the evidence with informed, articulate, and opinionated people. Therefore, when people don't give us evidence or feedback to improve our materials and are silent, sometimes we try to provoke an argument like we did here with JustAboutPolitics in order to facilitate closer examination of the evidence supporting people's beliefs and to eliminate the false religions and beliefs people have. By doing so, we clearly don't intend to be malicious and people shouldn't try to accuse of being mean to them.
Please don't interpret our deliberate attempts to provoke arguments as a personal attack. In short, don't “personalize” the issues and selfishly assume we are attacking you as a human being. We don't attack people, but false ideas and deception on this website. Please leave your ego and your self and your own agenda at the door when you enter these forums or read materials on this website so that we can all see the truth clearly. We're just trying to come to the truth here and debate seems to be the only way to ferret the sheep out of the bushes so they will feel obligated to examine and defend their beliefs rationally using ONLY evidence. Everyone benefits from that examination process and one of the results, hopefully, will be a more accountable and law abiding government and legal profession that serves the people instead of itself.
We have attempted the above approach here by turning these forums essentially into a “mock court”. By abandoning the field of battle, JustAboutPolitics admits that he agrees with us because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b) (6) says a failure to deny constitutes an admission. We win!
-
Use your noggin. They play word games and you can too. They will NEVER define which of the three “United States” they mean within the term “United States Citizen”. Check “YES” on the form, write “see note” and define the term at the form to exclude statutory citizens and include only constitutional citizens. That’s the approach taken in the USA Passport Application and it works, but doesn’t compromise your sovereignty. They are so ignorant they won’t be able to argue such a fine point. See:
USA Passport Application Attachment, Form #06.007
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm#1.6.__…ES_AND_LICENSES
You can also attach the following, which clarifies your citizenship AFTER they hire you, to ensure they don’t force you to become a whore of the beast:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form 02.001
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
For details on the “United States” word of art games they play in the context of citizenship, see:
Why You are a “national” or a “state national” and not a “U.S. citizen”
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
-
Mrcoffeetea
That link works. We just tried it.
For a simpler way to go there, open the opening page:
Then click on “START HERE” between the flags.
Your internet is slow or the site itself is filtered through your Internet Service Provider. Try a different computer somewhere else and then call your ISP and ask if they filter that website.
-
The place you probably read about the statute on the top of the capitol building was in Tuppy Saussy's book entitled Rulers of Evil. Fascinating book. He died in about 2007, but his work lives on. He was falsely convicted to tax crimes and fled before sentencing before he had discovered the whole truth about the IRS and government fraud. That just polarized him more against the Beast and was one of many reasons that he wrote that book. His book concludes that the government is ruled by an evil satanic priesthood. That priesthood is the American Bar Association.
You can visit Tupper's website at:
You can see his book at:
http://www.amazon.com/Rulers-Evil-Useful-K…g/dp/0066210836
-
Thanks for your comments, franklin.
It is our belief that no matter how much education or training or debate skills a person has, there is simply no way to argue with the truths on this website. They are based on such exhaustive study and evidence that no amount of preparation or training, including a PhD in law, could rebut the information and conclusions contained here without either:
1. Contradicting one's own statements.
2. Contradicting some other aspect of the law and evidence.
It is our belief that no one has researched the subjects convered on this website as thoroughly as we have or would be in a position to contradict anything here. In the last eight years we have scoured law libraries, hundreds of freedom websites that have come and gone over the years, gone to seminars, bought and read hundreds of law, tax, and freedom books, and we have never seen anything inconsistent with what appears on this site. In those eight years of maturation required to accumulate and perfect the evidence of government fraud and corruption contained on this website, the evidence and conclusions backing them up have stood the test of time. There hasn't been a single challenger over the years, including the DOJ, IRS employees, or even federal judges, who have ever argued successfully against anything here without quickly exposing themselves as both a fraud and a liar because they contradict their own statements. The truth cannot conflict with itself or it simply isn't truth. The minute one tries to impose their own agend upon the truth and filter or distort it to suit their fancy is the minute they instantly and obviously portray themselves and criminals and liars.
The reaction of the IRS, in fact, has been to label some of those who forcefully and competently advance information from this site as “Potentially Dangerous Taxpayers” (PDTs) who must be avoided. When you can't argue with people using evidence and logic, you portray them as violent so you don't have to address their arguments. What a joke! That's obstruction of justice, not lawful enforcement. Selfish and verbally abusive women do the same thing to their future ex husbands: Falsely accuse the husband of being physically abusive or engaging in domestic violence, and then getting a restraining order based on false allegations so that they don't have to reason or negotiate fairely and equitably while they are getting a divorce. This advantages them financially, destroys the credibility of the man, and sometimes get him unjustly fired from his job based on slander and lies. The courts should be just as vigilant in stopping lies and verbal abuse of women directed at men as they are of stopping physical abuse by men directed at women. In practice, the NEVER do and the man always loses in family court.
Calling our materials “frivolous” without providing legally admissible evidence that it is based on the following doesn't make it wrong, but simply proves that the judge or the opponent is operating in a political rather than legal capacity and officiating not over rights, but franchises as a franchise court or administrative body. We aren't interested in such opinions, but only evidence.
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Ultimately, all those who accuse us of being “frivolous” are really saying that we won't participate in their civil relgion, that we are a heretic for demanding evidence supporting their beliefs, and that courts are really just federal churches ruled by priests called “judges”. They are simply trying to shield and protect their religion from challengers by preserving their “plausible deniability”. Rousas Rushdoony explains it this way:
Quote:Fifth, there can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance. Legal positivism, a humanistic faith, has been savage in its hostility to the Biblical law-system and has claimed to be an “open” system. But Cohen, by no means a Christian, has aptly described the logical positivists as “nihilists” and their faith as “nihilistic absolutism.”[3] Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system and to alien religious foundations or else it commits suicide.[The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rousas Rushdoony, pp. 4-5]
For more of the above, see:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…adeLawRelig.htm