fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
See also:
SIM Card Maker Gemalto Bewildered Following Encryption Code Theft By US And British Spy Agencies -
Thanks.
🙂
-
Thanks,
Please provide evidence to back this up. No propaganda is permitted in these forums. The evidence must be at least a press article, court filing, etc.
-
Concerns Emerge About Samsung Smart TVs ‘Bugging’ Owners
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Concerns-Emerge-About-Samsung-Smart-TVs-Bugging-Owners-81691.html
-
Bing,
Thanks. You misspelled “thimerosal” so I fixed it. For the benefit of our readers, here is an article describing what it is:
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228
-
The above passage has been added to :
Disclaimer, Section 10
http://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htmWe now use this passage as a justification to document that the foundation of our faith is fighting compelled commerce with governments.
-
Here are links to the above people:
1. Privatis.me Youtube-Peter Eugene
https://www.youtube.com/user/privatis/featured
2. Privatis.me website-Peter Eugene
3. Jonah Bey
These people use a lot of the same language found on this site, but they are redemptionists who seek debt cancellation.
-
Interview with Steele in prison before he died. He admits he was railroaded in court and framed by the government. He says his lawyer sold him down the river and that he should have represented himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9lGcn66Sds
-
Steele was FRAMED:
-
oneofthepeople
Thanks for the errata. You are correct on all accounts. The document has been revised and reposted.The “United States**” described in the book is defined in:
1. Great IRS Hoax, Section 4.5.1
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm2. Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011, Section 1
http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm3. Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003
http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitDomTaxStatusOptions.pdfAs far as pasting from word into the forums, you can turn off formatting during the paste by clicking on the upper left square symbol in the forum editor toolbar to put the editor in character only mode. That will help the paste by dropping formatting.
Please keep your constructive feedback coming. It is very helpful to a LOT of people and adds to the credibility and authority of the work.
-
Please provide your detailed list or errata, but do so no more often than after you have read an entire chapter. We don’t want to have to make a bunch of individual changes and republications for only one or two errors at a time. You are correct about your errata.
The citation there is of our own making. We are the source. It says above that above the paragraph.
-
ANSWERS:
1. It deports people with the constitutional civil status of “alien”, meaning foreign national. These people are CONSTITUTIONAL “persons” but not necessarily statutory “persons”. The power to do so was granted by the CONSTITUTION itself and it needs no statutory origin.
2. No. Separation of powers is a constitutional issue, not a statutory issue. Statutes cannot and do not deal with states of the Union or PRIVATE humans. He litigated his case as a CONSTITUTIONAL “person” rather than a STATUTORY “person”. Do not confuse contexts. There are TWO main contexts for every word: CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY. CONSTITUTIONAL deals with states of the union and their relation to each other and the national government. STATUTORY deals INTERNALLY within federal territory. One can be a CONSTITUTIONAL “person” WITHOUT being a “STATUTORY” person. We cover this in:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory “Citizen”, Sections 3 through 5
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf3. They didn’t depart. They dealt exclusively with the CONSTITUTIONAL context to base the standing of the Plaintiff. That’s why they kept mentioning Article III of the Constitution in the context of the Plaintiff’s standing.
4. Because they are dealing with the CONSTITUTIONAL context. You are erroneously PRESUMING that the CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY contexts are the same. They are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, in fact. The “citizen of the United States” they are referring to is a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen.
5. All criminal statutes deal with human beings and NOT artificial entities. Artificial entities cannot commit crimes. Only human beings who exercise their powers individually can do so. See the following:
“Under our own systems of polity, the term ‘citizen’, implying the same or similar relations to the government and to society which appertain to the term, ‘subject’ in England, is familiar to all. Under either system, the term used is designed to apply to man in his individual character and to his natural capacities — to a being or agent [PUBLIC OFFICER!] possessing social and political rights and sustaining social, political, and moral obligations. It is in this acceptation only, therefore, that the term ‘citizen’, in the article of the Constitution, can be received and understood. When distributing the judicial power, that article extends it to controversies between ‘citizens’ of different states. This must mean the natural physical beings composing those separate communities, and can by no violence of interpretation be made to signify artificial, incorporeal, theoretical, and invisible creations. A corporation, therefore, being not a natural person, but a mere creature of the mind, invisible and intangible, cannot be a citizen of a state, or of the United States, and cannot fall within the terms or the power of the above mentioned article, and can therefore neither plead nor be impleaded in the courts of the United States.”
“Sir Edward Coke has declared, that a corporation cannot commit treason, felony, or other crime; neither is it capable of suffering a traitor’s or felon’s punishment, for it is not liable to corporeal penalties — that it can perform no personal duties, for it cannot take an oath for the due execution of an office; neither can it be arrested or committed to prison, for its existence being ideal, no man can arrest it; neither can it be excommunicated, for it has no soul. But these doctrines of Lord Coke were founded upon an apprehension of the law now treated as antiquated and obsolete. His lordship did not anticipate an improvement by which a corporation could be transformed into a citizen, and by that transformation be given a physical existence, and endowed with soul and body too. The incongruities here attempted to be shown as necessarily deducible from the decisions of the cases of Bank of the United States v. Deveaux and of Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Company v. Letson afford some illustration of the effects which must ever follow a departure from the settled principles of the law. These principles are always traceable to a wise and deeply founded experience; they are therefore ever consentaneous and in harmony with themselves and with reason, and whenever abandoned as guides to the judicial course, the aberration must lead to bewildering uncertainty and confusion. Conducted by these principles, consecrated both by time and the obedience of sages, I am brought to the following conclusions:
1st. That by no sound or reasonable interpretation, can a corporation — a mere faculty in law, be transformed into a citizen or treated as a [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizen.
2d. That the second section of the Third Article of the Constitution, investing the courts of the United States with jurisdiction in controversies between citizens of different states, cannot be made to embrace controversies to which corporations and not citizens are parties, and that the assumption by those courts of jurisdiction in such cases must involve a palpable infraction of the article and section just referred to.
3d. That in the cause before us, the party defendant in the circuit court having been a corporation aggregate created by the State of New Jersey, the circuit court could not properly take cognizance thereof, and therefore this cause should be remanded to the circuit court with directions that it be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.”
[Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Company 55 U.S. 80, 99 (1852) from dissenting opinion by Justice Daniel]You will note that in the case provided by Bing, the court essentially recognized that the Plaintiff was a CONSTITUTIONAL “person” but not a STATUTORY “person” under the criminal code, Title 18. They were a constitutional “person” because their CONSTITUTIONAL rights were protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, but they were NOT subject to Title 18 and therefore NOT a STATUTORY “person”. As we said, CONSTITUTIONAL “persons” and STATUTORY “persons” are mutually exclusive. You can’t be both at the same time. Those who are subject to Title 18 must commit their crimes on federal territory not within any state. The Plaintiff in that case didn’t do that and therefore wasn’t subject to Title 18. That is why the court ruled the way they did.
Please read the “Why You are a ‘national'” pamphlet completely before you again address the issue of “person”, “citizen”, “individual”, etc. It will answer most of your questions and eliminate the commonplace confusion of context you are engaging in. That confusion is prevalent even among many judges. That confusion is also the source of most of the UNJUST power unlawfully exercised by your government persecutors. That confusion of contexts is also thoroughly documented in:
Foundations of Freedom, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda, Form #12.021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvnTL_Z5asc
Please also ensure that you follow the Path to Freedom curricula, because it will prevent the kind of questions you are having and give you a structured approach to study and progress without too much involvement by us or other members of these forums.
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
http://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf
It is obvious that you are just getting started. The above should help you greatly. We don’t want to have to rewrite that curricula here in these forums. If you can’t or won’t read or follow it, please spare us your questions and having to rewrite it here. If we had to keep rewriting it here for every newbie that came along, we would be miserable and would have no life.
Please be patient with yourself and determined and disciplined in your study. You can’t overcome 12 years of government fool academy training and propaganda with only a few months of study of this site, and that study must include the Path to Freedom curricula. If you really value your freedom, you will have to earn it by disciplined study NOT of what we say, but of what the LAW says.
“One who turns his ear from hearing the law [God’s law or man’s law], even his prayer is an abomination.”
[Prov. 28:9, Bible, NKJV]”This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. Have I not commanded you? Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”
[Joshua 1:8-9, Bible, NKJV,
IMPLICATION: If you aren’t reading and trying to obey God’s law daily, then you’re not doing God’s will and you will not prosper]“But this crowd that does not know [and quote and follow and use] the law is accursed.”
[John 7:49, Bible, NKJV]“Salvation is far from the wicked, For they do not seek Your [God’s] statutes.”
[Psalm 119:155, Bible, NKJV]“Every man is supposed to know the law. A party who makes a contract [or enters into a franchise, which is also a contract] with an officer [of the government] without having it reduced to writing is knowingly accessory to a violation of duty on his part. Such a party aids in the violation of the law.”
[Clark v. United States, 95 U.S. 539 (1877)] -
See:
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/FormsInstr-Cites.htm
Please watch the Website Video Orientation on SEDM and you will be able to discover all the resources to locate authorities on any subject and to research any topic using the vast resources on both sites. Its on the opening page of SEDM.ORG
The direct link is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qs7_oq9I2w&list=PLin1scINPTOuZBr68zet-80YknxG1CNou&index=1
-
1. Congressional civil jurisdiction is limited in all cases to federal territory and not the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state.
“It is a well established principle of law that all federal regulation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears.”
[Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)]
“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”)
[Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894)]
“There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”)[U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222.]
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/jurisdiction.htm
____________________________
Ҥ1. Definitions, Nature, and Distinctions
“The word ‘territory,’ when used to designate a political organization has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and does not necessarily include all the territorial possessions of the United States, but may include only the portions thereof which are organized and exercise governmental functions under act of congress.”
“While the term ‘territory’ is often loosely used, and has even been construed to include municipal subdivisions of a territory, and ‘territories of the’ United States is sometimes used to refer to the entire domain over which the United States exercises dominion, the word ‘territory,’ when used to designate a political organization, has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and the term ‘territory’ or ‘territories’ does not necessarily include only a portion or the portions thereof which are organized and exercise government functions under acts of congress. The term ‘territories’ has been defined to be political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States, and in this sense the term ‘territory’ is not a description of a definite area of land but of a political unit governing and being governed as such. The question whether a particular subdivision or entity is a territory is not determined by the particular form of government with which it is, more or less temporarily, invested.
“Territories’ or ‘territory’ as including ‘state’ or ‘states.” While the term ‘territories of the’ United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress “territory” does not include a foreign state.
“As used in this title, the term ‘territories’ generally refers to the political subdivisions created by congress, and not within the boundaries of any of the several states.”
[86 C.J.S. [Corpus, Juris, Secundum, Legal Encyclopedia], Territories; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/territory.htm%5D
2. If Congress intends otherwise, and to therefore override the police powers, they are required per the U.S. Supreme Court to express that intent clearly and unambiguously by defining the term expressly to include constitutional states. Since they did not, then the limitation remains.
3. For details, see:
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm