fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Another update. Includes videos:
-
1-14-2008, Update on Joe Saladino:
Joe Saladino was released without bail the same day he was picked up. He was the main defendant in a case of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government pursuant to 18 USC 371. IRS Agent Ditman initiated the investigation, and Saladino has been pursued by Ditman for the last four years, resulting in an injunction a couple years back and now in this criminal prosecution.
The indictment was fatally defective. It alleged that Joe Saladino was domiciled in Oregon at the time of the alleged crime, and yet the government never notified Saladino that any of his activities were illegal nor gave him a chance to fix anything BEFORE he was indicted.
Two other people were picked up on the same day and also released: Richard Fuselier, of Louisiana, and Mike Mungovan, the marketing person for Freedom and Privacy Committee.
The government alleged that Saladino was a flight risk, and yet he hadn't left the country any time recently, and was in their face every day litigating against them. They wanted to disadvantage his case by forcing him to accept counsel in jail instead of being able to litigate himself from his own home. This is the same BULLCRAP they pulled on Eddie Kahn, whose trial is still going on today and started yesterday in Ocala Florida. Eddie was KIDNAPPED from Florida and has been in jail almost a year awaiting trial on similar charges. He was denied access to the law library or a computer and had to hand write his legal pleadings and have a friend type them and file them. Saladino, like Eddit Kahn, refused legal representation but accepted the U.S. Attorney, Schwartz, as co-counsel.
The IRS agent was questioned on the witness stand during the arraignment, and claimed that Saladino had defrauded the government of $7.2 million. Then he was asked whether the IRS could still collect any monies owed from these people, and Agent Ditman answered yes, which means he perjured the indictment because the money was not lost and could and probably has to some extent still been collected.
-
Your question does not belong on this forum. Please post them on the SEDM forums, because this is an SEDM form.
-
Alfred Adask is involved in a court action.
Following is a letter sent to Dr. Paul by hand-delivering a copy of the document to Ron Paul's son in Iowa December 27, 2007.
Part 2 below:
EXCERPTS FROM AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY Alfred Adask ON OCTOBER 22, A.D. 2006 INTO THE CASE FILE FOR GV-400268:
1. Plaintiffs [The Texas Attorney General's] Motion for Summary Judgment dated on or about May 31st, A.D. 2006 declared in part:
“4.2. Definition of a “drug” pursuant to state and federal health codes.
“The key to this case lies in determining, at law and not as a matter of fact, whether the Defendants' colloidal products met the definition of a “drug” when mislabeled, falsely advertised, and sold as products intended to treat disease. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ?431.002(14) provides in pertinent part: [Bold emphasis added by Alfred Adask.]
“Drug” means articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia National Formulary, or any supplement to it, articles designed or intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals , [emphasis added] articles, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals , [emphasis added] and articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in this subdivision. The term does not include devices or their components, parts, or accessories. A food for which a claim is made in accordance with Section 403® of the federal Act, and for which the claim is approved by the secretary, [emphasis added] is not a drug solely because the label or labeling contains such a claim. [Bold emphasis added by Alfred Adask.]
“The federal code, upon which the state code is based and which is virtually identical, is 21 U.S.C.A. ?321(g)(1), which provides in pertinent part:
“The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (:cool: articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals [emphasis added]; and © articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals [emphasis added]; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (:cool:, or ©. A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections 343®(1)(:cool: and 343®(3) of this title or sections 343®(1)(:cool: and 343®(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the requirements of section 343® of this title [emphasis added] is not a drug solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 343®(6) of this title is not a drug under clause © solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement. [Bold emphasis added by Alfred Adask.]
“Defendants' colloidal products were therefore `drugs' within the meaning of TEx. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ?431.002(14) and 21 U.S.C. ?321(g)(1) because they were labeled and advertised with testimonials and sold with the intent for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals” or in some instances, because they are sold with the intent of affecting “the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals”. These products, when sold with the testimonial claims regarding treatment of disease, cannot be dietary supplements because none of the Defendants have ever applied to the USFDA nor received approval for the claims on these products published by Defendants on their Internet web sites.”
2. Note well that the phrase “man or other animals” appears twice in the cited state law, twice in the cited federal law, and twice more in the plaintiffs' conclusion and summary–for a total of six instances in plaintiffs' text.
3. Plaintiffs argue, in essence, that the “key” to determining the allegations in GV400268 is determining “at law” whether alleged defendants advertised and sold alleged “drugs” with the ” intent for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals ” or “sold with the intent of affecting 'the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals '.”
4. The phrase “man or other animals” can only be read to mean that, under the alleged laws and arguments advanced by plaintiffs, “man” is viewed by plaintiffs and/or our current government as nothing more than an “animal”.
5. I am a man endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
6. I deny that I am an animal.
7. I deny that I do business with animals.
8. I eat animals.
9. I am a Protestant Christian.
10. I fear the LORD; I am sincere in my faith.
11. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1, The Bible.
12. “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” Genesis 1: 26-28, The Bible.
13. Plaintiffs' argument that “men” are “animals” defies the fundamental precept of the Jewish and Christian faiths that of all earthly creations, man–and man alone–is made in God's image and separate from animals in that man is endowed by God with dominion over animals.
14. Plaintiffs' attempt to compel me, other alleged defendants, and all other men and women to accept the status of animals violates my sincerely held religious beliefs.
15. “'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?' Jesus said to him,' you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.'” Matthew 22:36-40
16. Plaintiff's “key” contention that “men” are “animals” prevents me–a man–from loving my fellow man.
17. The “Declaration of Independence” declares in part: “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.” [Emphasis added.]
18. I deny that “animals” are endowed by their Creator with any “unalienable Rights.”
19. The third sentence of the “Declaration of Independence” declares the principle duty of government: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
20. I am a man; the principal business of Government and its officers is to secure my God-given, unalienable Rights.
21. Plaintiffs' attempt to equate all “men” with “animals” deprives me of the benefit of religious freedom and of the benefit of God-given, unalienable rights.
22. Plaintiffs' attempt to equate all “men” with “animals” is an attempt to establish a pagan religion that is contrary to the principles of the Jewish and Christian faiths and impose this pagan religion upon the people of The United States of America.
23. A plea to the jurisdiction is proper when the dispute clearly involves ecclesiastical matters over which the courts have no jurisdiction. See Hawkins v. Friendship Missionary Baptist Ch., 69 S.W.3d 756,758-59 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Green v. United Pentecostal Ch. Int'l, 899 S.W.2d 28, 30 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, writ denied); Patterson v. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 858 S.W.2d 602,604-05 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1993, no writ); see also Williams v. Gleason, 26 S.W.3d 54, 55-56 (Tex.App.?Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (resolved issue by motion for summary judgment). Secular courts cannot constitutionally determine the truth or falsity of religious matters. Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 678-79 (Tex.1996); see also Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 723 (1976) (religious controver?sies are not proper subject of civil court inquiry).
24. “As a threshold requirement, [defendant] must demonstrate that her refusal to be photographed is grounded upon a sincerely held religious belief. See Stevens v. Berger, 428 F.Supp. 896, 899 (E.D.N.Y.1977). Although a religious belief requires something more than a purely secular philosophical or personal belief, Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at 215-16, 92 S.Ct. at 1533-34, courts have approved an expansive definition of religion. See United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 165-66, 85 S.Ct. 850, 853-54, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965) (test is whether “a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God”); see also International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, 650 F.2d 430, 440 (2d Cir.1981); Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 963, 90 S.Ct. 434, 24 L.Ed.2d 427 (1969).” Quaring v Peterson, 728 F.2d 1121 (A.D. 1983)
25. “[T]he guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect. Particularly in this sensitive area, it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or his fellow [adherent] more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.” Thomas v. Review Board, supra, 450 U.S. at 715-16, 101 S.Ct. at 1430-31.
26. “Under the proper analysis, a burden upon religion exists when 'the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, * * * thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Thomas v. Review Board, supra, 450 U.S. at 717-18, 101 S.Ct. at 1431-32.
27. By treating all “men” to be “animals,” the state withholds from me the important benefits and/or unalienable Rights of free association and pursuit of Happiness.
28. “In Sherbert v. Verner, supra, . . . the Supreme Court held that in denying unemployment benefits to a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church who refused to work on Saturdays, the Sabbath of her faith, the state violated her right to the free exercise of religion. 374 U.S. at 402, 83 S.Ct. at 1792. Assessing the burden of the denial of benefits on the Sabbatarian's exercise of her religion, the Court commented,
“The [denial] forces her to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion [not working on Saturdays] in order to accept work, on the other hand. Id. at 404, 83 S.Ct. at 1794.” Quaring v Peterson, supra.
29. Under the pretext of treating all “men” as “animals,” plaintiffs attempt to force me and other alleged defendants to choose between following the precepts of our religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of our religion [recognizing our fellow men has made in the image of God rather than as animals] in order to work without the threat of undue regulation and excessive fines arbitrarily impose by “this state”.
30. For additional facts supporting this “Verified Notice of Special Appearance and Answer to Plaintiff's 5th Amended Petition,” see attached “Notice By Affidavit of Alfred Adask” filed with the Travis County District Clerk on September 7th, A.D. 2006.
Further affiant says naught.
RELEVANT STATE & FEDERAL LAW
CHAPTER 431. TEXAS FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
? 431.001. SHORT TITLE. This chapter may be cited as the Texas Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, ? 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989 .
? 431.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “Advertising” means all representations disseminated in any manner or by any means, other than by labeling, for the purpose of inducing, or that are likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase of food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics.
(2) “Animal feed,” as used in Subdivision (23), in Section 512 of the federal Act, and in provisions of this chapter referring to those paragraphs or sections, means an article intended for use as food for animals other than man as a substantial source of nutrients in the diet of the animals. The term is not limited to a mixture intended to be the sole ration of the animals.
. . . .
(6)(A) “Color additive” means a material that:
(i) is a dye, pigment, or other substance made by a process of synthesis or similar artifice, or extracted, isolated, or otherwise derived, with or without intermediate or final change of identity from a vegetable, animal, mineral, or other source; and
(ii) when added or applied to a food, drug, or cosmetic, or to the human body or any part of the human body, is capable, alone or through reaction with other substance, of imparting color. The term does not include any material exempted under the federal Act.
. . . .
(10) “Cosmetic” means articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part of the human body for cleaning, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and articles intended for use as a component of those articles. The term does not include soap.
(11) “Counterfeit drug” means a drug, or the container or labeling of a drug, that, without authorization, bears the trademark, trade name or other identifying mark, imprint, or device of a drug manufacturer, processor, packer, or distributor other than the person who in fact manufactured, processed, packed, or distributed the drug, and that falsely purports or is represented to be the product of, or to have been packed or distributed by, the other drug manufacturer, processor, packer, or distributor.
(12) “Department” means the Texas Department of Health.
(13) “Device,” except when used in Sections 431.003, 431.021(l), 431.082(g), 431.112© and 431.142©, means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, that is:
(A) recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia National Formulary or any supplement to it;
(:cool: intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; or
© intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals and that does not achieve any of its principal intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and is not dependent on metabolization for the achievement of any of its principal intended purposes.
(14) “Drug” means articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia National Formulary, or any supplement to it, articles designed or intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, articles, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals , and articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in this subdivision. The term does not include devices or their components, parts, or accessories. A food for which a claim is made in accordance with Section 403® of the federal Act, and for which the claim is approved by the secretary, is not a drug solely because the label or labeling contains such a claim.
(15) “Federal Act” means the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Title 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.).
(16) “Food” means:
(A) articles used for food or drink for man;
(:cool: chewing gum; and
© articles used for components of any such article.
. . . .
(20) “Infant formula” means a food that is represented for special dietary use solely as a food for infants by reason of its simulation of human milk or its suitability as a complete or partial substitute for human milk.
. . . .
United States Code
TITLE 21 – FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 9 – FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
SUBCHAPTER II – DEFINITIONS
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 321. Definitions; generally
For the purposes of this chapter –
(a)(1) The term “State”, except as used in the last sentence of section 372(a) of this title, means any State or Territory of the United States, the District of Columbia , and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(2) The term “Territory” means any Territory or possession of the United States, including the District of Columbia, and excluding the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Canal Zone.
(:cool: The term “interstate commerce” means (1) commerce between any State or Territory and any place outside thereof, and (2) commerce within the District of Columbia or within any other Territory not organized with a legislative body.
© The term “Department” means Department of Health and Human Services.
(d) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(e) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, corporation, and association.
(f) The term “food” means (1) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article.
(g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (:cool: articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and © articles (other than food)intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (:cool:, or ©. A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections 343®(1)(:cool: and 343®(3) of this title or sections 343®(1)(:cool:and 343®(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the requirements of section 343® of this title is not a drug solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 343®(6) of this title is not a drug under clause © solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement.
(2) The term “counterfeit drug” means a drug which, or the container or labeling of which, without authorization, bears the trademark, trade name, or other identifying mark, imprint, or device, or any likeness thereof, of a drug manufacturer, processor, packer, or distributor other than the person or persons who in fact manufactured, processed, packed, or distributed such drug and which thereby falsely purports or is represented to be the product of, or to have been packed or distributed by, such other drug manufacturer, processor, packer, or distributor.
(h) The term “device” (except when used in paragraph (n) of this section and in sections 331(i), 343(f), 352©, and 362© of this title) means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is –
(1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them,
(2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or
(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes.
(i) The term “cosmetic” means (1) articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and (2) articles intended for use as a component of any such articles; except that such term shall not include soap.
. . . .
(3) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (1) and (2), the Administrator may by regulation except a substance from the definition of “pesticide chemical” or “pesticide chemical residue” if –
(A) its occurrence as a residue on or in a raw agricultural commodity or processed food is attributable primarily to natural causes or to human activities not involving the use of any substances for a pesticidal purpose in the production, storage, processing, or transportation of any raw agricultural commodity or processed food; and
(:cool: the Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary, determines that the substance more appropriately should be regulated under one or more provisions of this chapter other than sections 342(a)(2)(:cool: and 346a of this title.
. . . .
(t)(1) The term “color additive” means a material which –
. . . .
(v) The term “new animal drug” means any drug intended for use
for animals other than man, including any drug intended for use in animal feed but not including such animal feed, –
. . . .
(w) The term “animal feed”, as used in paragraph (w) (!1) of this section, in section 360b of this title, and in provisions of this chapter referring to such paragraph or section, means an article which is intended for use for food for animals other than man and which is intended for use as a substantial source of nutrients in the diet of the animal, and is not limited to a mixture intended to be the sole ration of the animal.
. . . .
(z) The term “infant formula” means a food which purports to be or is represented for special dietary use solely as a food for infants by reason of its simulation of human milk or its suitability as a complete or partial substitute for human milk.
. . . .
(ff) The term “dietary supplement” –
(1) means a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients:
(A) a vitamin;
(:cool: a mineral;
© an herb or other botanical;
(D) an amino acid;
(E) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or
(F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause (A), (:cool:, ©, (D), or (E);
. . . .
(jj) The term “antibiotic drug” means any drug (except drugs for use in animals other than humans ) composed wholly or partly of any kind of penicillin, streptomycin, chlortetracycline, chloramphenicol, bacitracin, or any other drug intended for human use containing any quantity of any chemical substance which is produced by a micro-organism and which has the capacity to inhibit or destroy micro-organisms in dilute solution (including a chemically synthesized equivalent of any such substance) or any derivative thereof.
. . . .
Ballentine's Law Dictionary (Professor of Law, University of California,) 1948 Edition, offers the following definitions:
Human being. See Monster . (Page 599)
Monster. A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A A monster . . . hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage; but, although it hath deformity in any part of its body, yet, if it hath human shape, it may be heir. @ 2 Bl. Comm. 246. (Page 830).
Blackstone's Commentaries, Book II, page 246, 247, Ch. 15, section 334
Monsters. A monster, which hath not the shape of mankind, but in any part evidently bears the resemblance of the brute creation, hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage: but, although it hath deformity in any part of its body, yet if it hat human shape, it may heir. This is a very ancient rule in the law of England;(f/n g) and its reason is too obvious, and too shocking, to bear minute discussion.
footnote g — Those who are born with an form no human are not considered children; as when a woman by a perversion of nature brings forth something monstrous or prodigious.
* United States Code o TITLE 21 – FOOD AND DRUGS + CHAPTER 9 – FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT # SUBCHAPTER V – DRUGS AND DEVICES
* PART A – DRUGS AND DEVICES
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 360 . Registration of producers of drugs or devices
(a) Definitions As used in this section –
. . . .
(e) Registration number; uniform system for identification of devices intended for human use The Secretary may assign a registration number to any person or any establishment registered in accordance with this section. The Secretary may also assign a listing number to each drug or class of drugs listed under subsection (j) of this section. Any number assigned pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be the same as that assigned pursuant to the National Drug Code. The Secretary may by regulation prescribe a uniform system for the identification of devices intended for human use and may require that persons who are required to list such devices pursuant to subsection (j) of this section shall list such devices in accordance with such system.
. . .
(j) Filing of lists of drugs and devices manufactured, prepared, propagated and compounded by registrants; statements; accompanying disclosures
(1) Every person who registers with the Secretary under subsection (:cool:, ©, (d), or (i) of this section shall, at the time of registration under any such subsection, file with the Secretary a list of all drugs and a list of all devices and a brief statement of the basis for believing that each device included in the list is a device rather than a drug (with each drug and device in each list listed by its established name (as defined in section 352(e) of this title) and by any proprietary name) which are being manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed by him for commercial distribution and which he has not included in any list of drugs or devices filed by him with the Secretary under this paragraph or paragraph (2) before such time of registration. Such list shall be prepared in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe and shall be accompanied by –
(A) in the case of a drug contained in the applicable list and subject to section 355 or 360b of this title, or a device intended for human use contained in the applicable list with respect to which a performance standard has been established under section 360d of this title or which is subject to section 360e of this title, a reference to the authority for the marketing of such drug or device and a copy of all labeling for such drug or device;
. . . .
(k) Report preceding introduction of devices into interstate commerce Each person who is required to register under this section and who proposes to begin the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution of a device intended for human use shall, at least ninety days before making such introduction or delivery, report to the Secretary or person who is accredited under section 360m(a) of this title (in such form and manner as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe) –
(1) the class in which the device is classified under section 360c of this title or if such person determines that the device is not classified under such section, a statement of that determination and the basis for such person's determination that the device is or is not so classified, and
(2) action taken by such person to comply with requirements under section 360d or 360e of this title which are applicable to the device.
(l) Exemption from reporting requirements A report under subsection (k) of this section is not required for a device intended for human use that is exempted from the requirements of this subsection under subsection (m) of this section or is within a type that has been classified into class I under section 360c of this title. The exception established in the preceding sentence does not apply to any class I device that is intended for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or to any class I device that presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.
-
Patriot's Wife,
You are beginning to understand now why Jesus spoke in parables. Not everyone can either handle or wants to hear the truth. God described what he does with people like that:
Quote:?Wisdom calls aloud outside; she raises her voice in the open squares, she cries out in the chief concourses, at the openings of the gates in the city she speaks her words; how long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity?? For scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge.? Turn at my rebuke; surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.? Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, because you disdained my counsel, and would have none of my rebuke, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes.? When your terror comes like a storm, and your destruction comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you.? Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.? Because they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord.? They have none of my counsel and despised my every rebuke.? Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled to the full with their own fancies.? For the turning away of the simple will slay [and enslave] them.? And the complacency of fools will destroy them; but whoever listens to me [and studies My Law, the Bible] will dwell safely, and will be secure, without fear of evil.??[Prov. 1:20-33, Bible]
We have the same problems as you describe, and they are not unusual for the few who know the truth and want to ACT on it. People would rather live in a cage and be cared for by a pagan Egyptian government than follow Moses into the wilderness and accept reponsibility for themselves. They don't want to be educated because then they must feel an obligation to commit to do something about fixing it, and they are too lazy so they hide their head in the sand like the Israelites did when they grumbled against Moses for trying to lead them out of bondage.
There is hope, and more importantly a big reward, in heaven for people like us. We've taken up Jesus' cross and are following Him. We have found treasure, which is the Truth, buried in a field and spent everything we have to buy the field.
Quote:The Parable of the Hidden Treasure?Â
?Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. [Matt. 13:44., Bible, NKJV]
-
The Patriot's Wife,
Thanks! 😀 Words of encouragement recharge our batteries and are among the few rewards we receive for this ministry and our labor of love to try to educate and inform people.
Blessings on your journey to the promised land of freedom and liberty, which will be fascinating and endless.
Thanks also for having an open enough mind to take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes. There is a vast world inside the rabbit hole when one begins to question the lies that our government has been feeding people for most of the last 100 years. We were deceived for years ourselves, and what woke us up and caused us to begin questioning was a serious personal crisis. After we got hit between the eyes with a two by four by a lawyer, all of a sudden we began seeing the world in color rather than black and white and our life have never been the same since.
-
The Patriot's Wife
Welcome to our forum! We are very happy to hear that you and your husband are on the same page. It is rare to find two people equally yoked to each other who share a commitment to the subject of freedom and sovereignty. Thanks for supporting your husband in his studies.
🙂
You are referring to Paul's discussion of person found in 1 Cor. 2 and 3. We are all spririt and flesh. Even the triune God fits the same description: He is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Son is the flesh, the Holy Ghost is the Spirit. All Christians are spiritual because they are born again. However, not all Christians think spiritually, but rather allow themselves to be mislead and misdirtected by the flesh and by the agendas of others that arise out of the flesh.
Think of the “natural person” and the “natural man” as one in the same and synonymous with the flesh. The goal is to be NEITHER, but to be entirely spirit which is domiciled within the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth and not within the jurisdiction of any earthly government. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…ForTaxation.htm
You can only be a “person” within man's law by being flesh within the jurisdiction of the government. In the context of civil jurisdiction, you become a “person” when you choose a domicile within the jurisdiction of a government and thereby nominate that state or government as your protector. The Bible says that the Lord is our Lawgiver, King, and Judge and that it is a sin to nominate an earthly king or ruler above us. Therefore, we can't consensually be any kind of “person” , whether natural or otherwise, within any government law.
No need getting legalistic or overly technical as you have.
Quote:“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”[Collossians 2:8, Bible, NKJV]
Just live by God's laws and don't select a domicile within any government or conduct commerce with the government. Commerce is the other vehicle by which one becomes a “person” subject to the jurisdiction. The bible identifies “The Beast” as the kings and political rulers of the Earth in Rev. 19:19. Babylon the Great Harlot is described as fornicating with the Beast. The term fornicate is synonymous with intercourse, and Black's law dictionary defines “commerce” as intercourse. Therefore, we can't contract with, accept benefits from, or have a domicile within any earthly government without offending God or committing idolatry:
Quote:?You shall make no covenant with them [foreigners], nor with their [pagan government] gods [or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a ?resident? in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me.?? For if you serve their gods [under contract or agreement], it will surely be a snare to you.?[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]
?It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances [contracts/covenants] with any portion of the foreign world.?
[George Washington, Farewell Address]
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances [contracts, covenants, treaties] with none.”
[Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801]
“Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, nor observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols. I am the LORD your God: Walk in My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them; hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.”
[Ezekial 20:10-20, Bible, NKJV]
-
Fixed. Thanks.
-
Fred Marashall was kind enough to author the following after leaving Sherry's trial.
Tuesday evening, October 30, 2007
This is a sad day. I presume most people know by now that Sherry was convicted of all four counts of WFTF by a mind-numbed indoctrinated jury of the kind of people we walk among every day. I left the courthouse at 5:20 and drove 100 miles to Columbus, Georgia and took my son out for dinner. I will write my account and impressions before I read anyone else's comments.
At the end of the court days on Monday and Tuesday I called Mark Yannone and David Jahn and gave them brief comments on my observations.
Let me begin by creating a mental vision of the setting. The trial was held in Judge Orenda D. Evans' Courtroom 1908, on the 19th Floor of the Richard B. Russell Federal Building in Atlanta. The building is a vulgar, massive, cavernous 26-story monument to federal power. I couldn't help but compare it with the palaces Saddam Hussein built to flaunt his power.
Atlanta Skyscrapers
The building is accessible to the handicapped, provided they arrive at the front door by limo, have a motorized power chair with a fully-charged battery (or a wheelchair and a valet to push it half a mile around the two tiers of steps to get to the entrance via gradual ramp ascension). I won't bother
describing all the obscene waste that is so conspicuously displayed in this $120 Million (1980 dollars) tower of power with all its wasted space, 20-25 foot ceilings, long climatized empty hallways and nearly two dozen elevators.
Underground parking is available for employees only, 20% of whom are uniformed security “officers,” half of whom probably wouldn't qualify to load baggage at airports. For the peasants who are forced by a myriad of laws to visit the building, there is one outdoor parking lot outside the first basement level, for those able approach on the right one-way street after making three consecutive right turns on other one-way street. If you get in by 9 AM, you can park all day for $5. If you arrive at or after 9 AM (as I did, at 9:02 AM the second day), the rate is $13.
In my two-day experience there, I found only two entrances available to the public, both equipped with elaborate and intimidating screening/search/x-ray stations staffed by no fewer than six federal security personnel. All who I encountered spoke English, thank goodness. After I emptied all my pockets into the X-ray tray, they had me prop myself against the wall (for stability) so they could run my crutches through the X-ray compartment on a conveyer belt, and one of the nice gentlemen was kind enough to bring them back to me so I could advance to the entrance to a long, high-ceiling, otherwise useless, hallway to the elevators. The first place I found to sit down and catch my breath was on two very hard and very expensive benches, fashioned from some exotic wood, in the area outside Courtroom 1908 on the 19th floor, having arrived there after being sent to the 22nd floor to the court clerk's office to find out where Sherry's trial was to be held. There were no seats of any kind visible anywhere around the landing at the 22nd floor.
I was physically exhausted by the time I arrived outside the empty courtroom at 8:30 the first morning after having been delivered at the front by a taxi driver from Zimbabwe who spoke very little English and said he could only take me to the FederalBuilding if I could tell him which way to go and where to turn. For the 9-mile journey from the hotel at North Druid Hills, I paid $25, which included a 45-cent tip (the meter read $24.55). The tip was because he didn't miss any of the turns I told him to take.
By court time, quite a number of supporters had arrived. The highest count was at 3 P.M. when I counted 46. Spectators are silently discouraged by both the difficult accessibility to the building and the hard and uncomfortable wood benches in the gallery in the back of the courtroom.
To be fair, the acoustics inside the courtroom were great. The lower halves of the walls were padded and carpeted, and the upper halves were elegantly paneled. No one had any difficulty hearing anyone speak in the courtroom. For $120 million, one would expect no less.
Among the supporters were Sherry's father, her husband Colin Jackson, Charlie Beale, Peymon, Vernie Kuglin (whose home was raided by the IRS the preceding Monday), Joe Banister, Gary Thomason (Truth Attack), and a number of others whose names I did not know. Several gave me their names but preferred they not be mentioned, having driven from places like South Florida, Mississippi, the Carolinas, Virginia, Louisiana, and elsewhere.
Sherry, Larry Becraft, and Jeff Dickstein seemed confident.
The jury was selected after the judge asked all 35 prospective jurors a sequence of general questions clearly designed to help the prosecution identify (and eliminate) anyone who worked for, had ever worked for, or knew anyone who had ever worked for the IRS, any government agency, any law enforcement agency, any lawyer or prosecutor, or any sheriff's office. She asked if anyone had ever had any unpleasant experience with any government agency, anyone who had been arrested, anyone who felt (s)he had been unfairly treated by any government or law enforcement agency. She asked if anyone, including immediate family members, had been arrested. She asked for a show of hands of those who had performed jury duty before. She asked if anyone belonged, or had ever belonged, to any organization which opposes the income tax or believes the income tax is unconstitutional. She asked if anyone believed that the IRS ought not have the authority to enforce tax laws or audit the financial records of citizens. Finally, she asked if anyone had ever been involved with any litigation against any government agency.
Thirteen were selected, 12 jurors and one alternate. Selected were:
White single female who works in advertising sales. Estimated age: 32-35
White male who is an account specialist in a Bio-Lab, whose wife is a special ed teacher – age 38-40
White female who works in a medical office for an anesthesiologist, age 30-35
White male who is retired from BellSouth, with wife who was a government accountant – age 65-plus
Black female practical nurse who works in long term health care, 35-ish
White male information technology manager, previously a programmer, age 45-50
White female, stay-at-home-mom who has worked some in consumer marketing, probably 35
White male who works in marketing for a county tax commissioner's office, age 60-65
Hispanic female who works for the American Cancer Society, age 35-ish
White male who is a technical writer for computer technology publications, age 40-42
Black female who is retired from the Social Security Administration, age 55-60
Black male who works on an assembly line in an airplane factory, previously a truck driver, age 33-35
Black female works in supply-ordering for a county government, age 45-50
The Assistant U.S. Attorney, who was the prosecutor, was a short 50-ish man who deceptively seemed inept and ill-prepared throughout most of the first day. I never saw his name in writing and was never able to clearly discern his name when it was mentioned by the Judge and Larry Becraft. He was accompanied at the prosecution table by the IRS case agent and a DOJ tax division representative, all men. They had boxes and boxes of records and manuals. I was surprised when the prosecutor did not vilify Sherry in his seven-minute opening statement.
Larry's opening statement took about 25 minutes and he went into considerable detail regarding the testimony he expected from Sherry. I was surprised that neither the prosecutor objected nor the judge issued any caution. I thought Larry got away with a lot that I had not expected. Things looked pretty promising at that point.
The first witness the prosecutor called consisted of a black female who was hired at the same time Sherry was hired and they went through initial training together. She told a little about their training and the prosecutor focused on the training concerning processing and examining tax returns and other forms, and who has to submit them. She admitted, however, that after the initial 6-8 weeks she had not worked anywhere near Sherry. She also admitted that after that initial flurry of classes, IRS agents get very little training beyond about 40 hours a year of continuing education.
The second witness was a black lady CPA who had been involved with Sherry in a business corporation with three stockholders, all CPA's, who combined to handle a three-year accounting contract for the Georgia State Government. She testified as to how much money Sherry made.
The third witness was a male DOJ fraud investigator who testified as to how much income Sherry allegedly had over the four years covered in her charges. Larry's cross examination did not dispute any of the claims of income, at least not that I recall. The goal, apparently, was to show that Sherry simply did not believe that she was liable for any taxes and therefore was under no obligation to file.
When the prosecutor rested shortly before 4 PM, I think it surprised everyone on “our side.”
Sherry took the stand at 4:10 after a short break and testified pretty much as Larry's opening statement had predicted. Hardly any objection was voiced and Judge Evans gave Larry a wide berth. In the course of Sherry's testimony, she told of some of her research and her efforts to find someone to show her a law that made typical Americans liable for income taxes or imposed any duty to file returns. She testified that she had contacted some of her friends at the IRS and asked them to help her find the applicable provisions of law but none had produced any results. She particularly described one man who she also knew from church and mentioned having had lunch with him on a couple of occasions. I don't recall whether she mentioned their names during direct or during cross the following day, but that testimony proved fatal to her case because the prosecutor brought in several of them as rebuttal witnesses and acted as though they hardly knew Sherry and all denied having even discussed the subject with her. Three are currently employed by the IRS and one is retired, so they have their careers and pensions on the line should they go against the IRS with their testimony. Most anyone who knows Sherry believes her and it's no stretch to presume that the rebuttal witnesses lied. Sherry is a high profile opponent and has to be silenced, at whatever cost.
As we were leaving the building Monday afternoon, one supporter overheard the bailiff, who had sat through the trial between the jury and the witness box, in a discussion with a lady with whom he was walking to the parking lot. The lady asked him what kind of case he had in his court today, and his response was that he had another one of those tax evasion cases, and added that “if I have to pay taxes, by God those tax protestors have to pay it too.”
When I heard, back at the hotel, of that exchange it immediately occurred to me that most jury members would probably be thinking the same thing, so I wrote a note about it for Larry and suggested that he include something in his closing statement to neutralize that understandable reaction among the jurors. “I realize that some of you may be thinking along those lines, but why not consider that if she hasn't been able to find any such law during her years of research, and therefore isn't liable for paying income taxes, that maybe you jury members might not ought to be paying them either?” Larry considered the suggestion but did not use it, probably because it would never have been allowed.
Sherry resumed her testimony on Tuesday morning, and things still looked great when Larry rested for the prosecution. But when the prosecutor called rebuttal witnesses, things went downhill very fast, as he was very effective in portraying Sherry as a liar whose testimony….all of it….was not to be believed. He made every effort to lead the jury to see her as a greedy woman whose main interest was making money and not paying taxes on it.
From my observation of the jury members, which is nothing more than pure speculation, I thought they were keeping an open mind all the way to the end of Sherry's testimony. I noted visible changes in their expression and their attention level once rebuttal witnesses began denying the conversations and associations Sherry had related.
Larry recalled Sherry as a rebuttal witness, but the prosecutor's objections and the judge's limitations pretty much prevented her from saying anything of any significance.
The prosecutor's closing statement was damaging, tremendously so. Larry's closing statement was mostly a re-hash of his opening statement, and the whole case then hinged on whether or not the jury believed Sherry. They didn't, they returned a guilty verdict in less than 45 minutes. More than half a dozen IRS agents appeared from nowhere and assembled on the front row of the gallery to hear the verdict. They all seem pleased with the verdict. The jury probably just wanted to go home.
The judge thanked the jury, dismissed them, then set the court in recess. She did not mention a sentencing hearing, she gave no instructions to Sherry or Larry, she just recessed the court and left.
I'll write more when I get back to Tennessee and onto my own computer.
Fred
_________________
– – – – – – – – – – –
“The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution.” ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 — “This is where I belong” ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
-
Woodwalker,
Just added a “Health” forum under “General Discussions”. Thanks for the suggestion.
-
Riverway,
1. Each state has TWO states within it: The federal corporate state and the de jure republic. See:
Corporatization and Privatization of the government, Form #05.024
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. A officer of a state corporation is automatically a “public official” of the state government, but he is not automatically ALSO an officer of a federal corporation or a federal “public officer” unless he applies for an EIN, TIN, SSN, license, or other federal franchise.
3. Likewise, he is not automatically a “U.S. citizen” unless he surrenders his “nonresident alien” status and becomes a resident alien by electing to engage in a federal franchise such as a “trade or business” or a licensed activity. See section 12 et seq of the memorandum below:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form 05.020
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Some people have told us that they incorporated in their state and were issued the incorporation documents by the secretary of state. Later, they got a letter from the IRS asking them if they were going to get an EIN. This essentially as an invitation to become a federal corporation also and “serve two masters”, which the Bible forbids. They replied with a letter asking the IRS where the forms and procedures are for state and not federal corporations, because they are mutually exclusive, and the IRS went away and never bothered them again.
“A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country [or jurisdiction] only.”
[19 Corpus Juris Secundum, Corporations, ?886]
-
Riverway,
The Declaration of Independence says our rights are “unalienable”. The definition of “unalienable” implies that they may not lawfully be bargained away in relation to the government.
Quote:?Unalienable.? Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.?[Black?s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693]
Those rights and the Constitution that protects them attach to the land you stand on, and not your citizenship status or domicile.
Quote:?It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure, and not the status of the people who live in it.?[Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)]
That means your rights cannot be contracted away or bargained away in respect to the government, which is the only context in which the Bill of Rights has any meaning at all. Anything that involves a license is a franchise, and all franchises are based on contract. See section 4 of the following:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
A contract is a method of surrendering rights of one kind or another for something else of value. You can contract away private rights to other private parties but the Constitution forbids you from contracting with the government to give them away. Consequently, the government cannot even lawfully offer franchises to people who are domiciled on territory protected by the Bill of Rights within states of the Union, because they can't entice a violation of the constitution and a destruction of the very thing and ONLY thing that the Constitution was created to protect. The ONLY place they can lawfully license the exercise of a right such as the right to travel is in places not protected by constitutional rights. The only place that fits that description is federal territory.
Quote:?Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to 'guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government' (art. 4, 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, 'a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,' Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President. It was not until they had attained a certain population that power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of the bill of rights.?[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
It is therefore UNLAWFUL to to offer franchises or licenses to anyone domiciled within a state of the Union on other than federal territory. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with this when it said:
Quote:?It would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment, seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold.? It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose.? But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of Constitutional rights.? If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all.? It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out or existence.??[Frost v.? Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583; 46 S.Ct. 605 (1926)]
Hence, the above explains why nearly all government forms make a stealthful attempt to “launder” your identity to make you look like a statutory “person” or “individual” (government “public officer” representing an entity domiciled on federal territory) that they can lawfully legislate for and enforce against: e.g. a statutory “U.S. citizen” pursuant to 8 USC 1401 or a “resident” (alien) pursuant to 26 USC 7701(B )(1)(A ). What these two statuses have in common is a domicile on federal territory. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…ForTaxation.htm
In effect, they are using “words of art” to kidnap your legal identity under civil but not criminal law and move it to the District of Columbia pursuant to 26 USC 7701(a )(39), 26 USC 7408(d ), and Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 17(B ). This also has the desired affect of causing a waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to 28 USC 1603(B )(3) and turns you from a “sovereign” into a “subject”. In that sense, they are just as bad as identity thieves who steal your credit card and run up charges, because they are running up tax debts against a “public office” that isn't you, and then pretending like you are the “officer” and debtor. They certainly know that the real debtor is the “res” or “public office” franchise that they created with a domicile within their jurisdiction but they fraudulently deny the existence of the “trade or business”/”public office” and the franchise they are enforcing so they don't become an accessory to a conspiracy against your rights and don't remind you that your participation truly is voluntary. They maliciously exploit your own legal ignorance to fool you into “volunteering” to become surety for this “public officer”. In that sense, the income tax is 100% voluntary because they can't force you to donate your your labor, which is property, to a public use without your consent. It would be a violation of the fifth amendment takings clause to take your property without your consent.
Engaging in franchises such as driver's licenses is the method that the government ABUSES unlawfully to manufacture an “individual” and a “res” they can legislate for who has a domicile on federal territory and has no constitutional rights, but only statutory “privileges”. This also implies that your explicit (in writing) or implicit (actions) consent to voluntarily engage in a regulated franchise creates the “person” or “res” that you become the slave of if you aren't sophisticated enough to distinguish between the “office” (franchise) and the person filling the “office”, which is the man or woman who has unalienable rights.
Quote:Consensus facit legem.Consent makes the law.? A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
[Bouvier?s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE:? http://famguardian.org/Publications/Bouvie…viersMaxims.htm]
That “person” that your consent manufactures is a “public officer”, because the only thing they can legislate for are their own officers and employees, “public rights” (e.g. franchises), “public conduct”, and community property called “territory”. The U.S. Supreme Court said the ability to regulate private conduct is “repugnant to the Constitution”.
Q.E.D.: Quod Erat Demonstrandum
If you would like to know more about this subject, see:
Why All Statutory Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
-
Seraph,
Nothing wrong there if not tied to an SSN. Having a driver's license implies a domicile on federal territory, but that can always be rescinded later by terminating the license, which we would suggest ASAP.
The DS-11 application establishes your status, not what the passport says. They all look the same.
Thanks for sharing your success story. Good job.
-
That's not a quote, but part of a narrative in which Hassett v. Welch is cited as authority. You're confused. If it were a quote, it would be indented or surrounded by quotation marks and italicized, or both.
Nothing to fix, but thanks anyway.
-
One website focusing on nonpublication is:
It also turns out that even nonpublished cases appear within Westlaw, so there is no need to compile such a list of nonpublished cases.
I do agree with you, however, that no case should go unpublished for the many reasons you cited and others.