fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Nicodemus.
Thanks for sharing! 🙂
-
Search the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, who frequently refers to Vattels book when mentioning the “Law of Nations”.
1. Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 233 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (C.A.D.C., 1984)
3. Armitz Drown v. the United States, 12 U.S. 110, 8 Cranch 110, 3 L.Ed. 504 (1814)
…the list goes ON and ON.
Other sources of the Law of Nations are also cited by the USSC:
” The authority of Puffendorf and Vattel are introduced to shew that private subjects are not at liberty to seize the property of enemies without the commission of the sovereign, and if they do they are considered as pirates. But when attentively considered, it strikes me that, taking the full scope of these authors, they will not be found to support so broad a position. Puff. B. 8. ch. 6. § 24.—Vattel, B. 3. ch. 15. § 223, 224, 225, 226, 227. Vattel himself admits (§ 234,) that the declaration of war, which enjoins the subjects at large to attach the enemy’s subjects, implies a general order; and that to commit hostilities on our enemy without an order from our sovereign after the war, is not a violation so much of the law of nations as of the public law applicable to the sovereignty of our own nation, (§ 225.)”
[Armitz Drown v. the United States, 12 U.S. 110, 8 Cranch 110, 3 L.Ed. 504 (1814)]
-
We would argue that anyone IN THE GOVERNMENT who interferes with peaceful NONVIOLENT court remedies for the protection of PRIVATE rights, or outlaws private rights, or compels the conversion of PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property indirectly is “teaching and advocating” a duty to overthrow the government as described above. By destroying all peaceful means of protecting private rights, the ONLY remedy they leave is violence to restore said rights. We guess this means the WORST terrorists are judges in state courts who interfere with invoking the Constitution as a defense against government usurpation and violation of private rights.
-
More on the Gordon Hall case, from the Quatlosers:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=9257
Gordon Hall is the guy who runs the following community:
Talkshoe: Contracts in Motion
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=91191
-
26 U.S.C. 1402(c ):
Title 26 › Subtitle A › Chapter 2 › § 1402
26 USC § 1402 – Definitions
(c ) Trade or business
The term “trade or business”, when used with reference to self-employment income or net earnings from self-employment, shall have the same meaning as when used in section 162 (relating to trade or business expenses), except that such term shall not include—(1) the performance of the functions of a public office, other than the functions of a public office of a State or a political subdivision thereof with respect to fees received in any period in which the functions are performed in a position compensated solely on a fee basis and in which such functions are not covered under an agreement entered into by such State and the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to section 218 of the Social Security Act;(2) the performance of service by an individual as an employee, other than—(A) service described in section 3121 (14)(B ) performed by an individual who has attained the age of 18,(C ) service described in section 3121 (11), (12), or (15) performed in the United States (as defined in section 3121 (e)(2)) by a citizen of the United States, except service which constitutes “employment” under section 3121 (y),(D) service described in paragraph (4) of this subsection,(E) service performed by an individual as an employee of a State or a political subdivision thereof in a position compensated solely on a fee basis with respect to fees received in any period in which such service is not covered under an agreement entered into by such State and the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to section 218 of the Social Security Act,(3) the performance of service by an individual as an employee or employee representative as defined in section 3231;(4) the performance of service by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order;(5) the performance of service by an individual in the exercise of his profession as a Christian Science practitioner; or(6) the performance of service by an individual during the period for which an exemption under subsection (g) is effective with respect to him.The provisions of paragraph (4) or (5) shall not apply to service (other than service performed by a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of poverty as a member of such order) performed by an individual unless an exemption under subsection (e) is effective with respect to him. -
Neo,
What about all the other points made in how to get a statutory remedy? We put all that work in our answer and yet you singled out only the LAATW status and ignored all the other points made. Get with the program, Neo. Why should we go to all that trouble to answer your main issue of standing and procedure and get no response? 🙂
-
I answered your question thoroughly and completely . Not avoiding anything.
The problem arises in how the SS INTERPRETS or fails to DISCLOSE the CONTEXT of geographical terms on the form, not in what it actually says or defines. This turns a “society of law” into a “society of men” as the U.S. Supreme Court alluded to in Marbury v. Madison and therefore CANNOT be permitted. Even the DS-11 says you are a non-citizen national in the perjury statement and they don’t balk at that, so obviously it can only mean the political context. Why can or should the SSA use a different context, other than to STEAL from people, of course, by connecting them with an incorrect STATUTORY status. THAT presumption is what needs to be challenged. Furthermore, even the non-citizen national status is an ALIEN under Title 8 AND Title 26, just like a state citizen, while ALSO NOT being a political or constitutional alien.
As you well know, they are playing switcheroo of context between CONSTIUTTIONAL and STATUTORY. They can’t have it both ways and they need to describe ONLY ONE. If they won’t define WHICH context, the applicant has the duty to define it FOR them, just as I did earlier. At that point, they can’t say anything if they don’t challenge that context ON THE SPOT, and if they DO, they have to provide legal evidence proving which context applies. It can’t subjectively change for each applicant. This came of fallacy by equivocation is the heart of the FRAUD, and it is documented in:
Foundations of Freedom, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvnTL_Z5asc
The fact that SSA says that an American Samoan is a U.S. Citizen in Block 5 of the SS-5 raises BIG questions about exactly who a non-citizen national is on the DS-11 form if it ISN’T an American Samoan. The only thing left that it COULD be is a state citizen. Since “OTHER” does not appear on the DS-11 but it has all the same blocks other than OTHER, I take “non-citizen national” on the DS-11 and “OTHER” on the SS-5 to be equivalent.
The reason Neo doesn’t like the “other” option on the SS-5 is that he wants to preserve his eligibility for SS rather than cancel it, as all members must do. 20 CFR 411.104 says that only citizens and resident aliens are eligible, but not “other”.
Someone who is CONSTITUTIONALLY/POLITICALLY foreign would use LAATW or LAPR. STATUTORILY but not CONSTITUTIONALLY foreign would check “Other” in SS-5 Block 5 or “Non-citizen national” on the DS-11.
-
1. OTHER can ALSO be an alien, but a statutory and not constitutional alien. Therefore, they can still be an NRA as long as they are NOT a CSP of A. NRA is anything OTHER than CSP=A.
2. SS-5 Block 5 Status=Other. CSP code D: Other. Under “Other” on block 5, it says see page 3 of the instructions. That page then says:
5. If you check “Legal Alien Not Allowed to Work” or “Other,” you must provide a document from a U.S. Federal, State, or local government agency that explains why you need a Social Security number and that you meet all the requirements for the government benefit. NOTE: Most agencies do not require that you have a Social Security number. Contact us to see if your reason qualifies for a Social Security number.
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
The Why You are a National pamphlet, section 10.3, has a list of the CSP values in Table 8.
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
On the I-9, this would be a “non-citizen national of the United States”, where “United States” means the NATION or POLITICAL United States*** and not the statutory “United States*”
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf
This is just like in the perjury statement at the end of the DS-11 passport application, which ALSO identifies the applicant as EITHER a “national of the United States” OR a “Non-citizen national”.
-
1. Where does it say “Other” is not work eligible? If Other is not work eligible, I would argue that a state citizen can’t even use this form. You pointed this out earlier as well. If some idiot in a social security office says this, the courts say you can’t trust them. Where IN THE LAW does it say OTHER is not work eligible? I don’t give a damn about a “policy” statement by an ignorant and presumptuous employee that you aren’t allowed to trust, or even what a Social Security publication says, which you also aren’t allowed to trust:
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
2. The supreme court held that it has no jurisdiction over a state domiciled citizen while on land within a state. Obviously, there is an exception for constitutional/political aliens for immigration ONLY but no other exception. We don’t argue against jurisdiction when abroad or within federal office, but only if the U.S. citizen status is invoked.:
“It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.“
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]
In proof of the above, look in:
Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032.
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The above conclusively establishes that they can only enforce against public officers in a state. This argument even worked in court for Hansen, as indicated earlier. If they say I have a civil obligation, I ask for EVIDENCE on the record of the existence of EITHER a contract OR an office. They have neither so they have no jurisdiction. A status under their franchises is indirect evidence of such a contract or office.
“All the powers of the government [
including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public] must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts made with [Content protected for members only] individuals.”[Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)]
Obviously, offices and contracts, which are synonymous, are Article 4, section 4 powers that we all agree that congress has over its own property, even within a Constitutional state. The fact that they have jurisdiction over a federal OFFICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 doesn’t mean it can lawfully be exercised in a state, however, WITHOUT express authorization required under 4 USC 72. Show me the authorization for the office of “person” to be exercised in a constitutional state. Without it, its a de facto office and de facto officer that confers NO jurisdiction to a federal court.
Unless the state citizen invokes the constitution in federal court, occupies a federal office, or has a contract with the feds, he has not business there and his case has to be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. Rule 12(b )(6).
What part of “ALL” do you not understand? You say they have jurisdiction, so you as the moving party MUST provide EVIDENCE that it comes from OTHER than an office or a contract, keeping in mind that VOLUNTARILY and LAWFULLY acquired franchise statuses are offices. Show me the beef.
3. Lastly, franchises do not CREATE any new offices. They only add benefits to EXISTING offices such as the military office you occupy. Yes, agency can exist through contract, but public office can only lawfully be created with consent and an accompanying OATH that franchise participants never take. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/PublicOrPrivate-Tax-Return.pdf
-
In thinking more carefully about the subject of this forum topic, I have reasoned a different approach to the statutory remedy sought by Neo. Here is a summary of that approach:
1. All of the PUBLIC rights enforced by the statutes were CREATED by an act of mutual consent on the part of Neo, the franchisee, and the government grantor of the franchise.
2. A change in status under the civil franchise represents a withdrawal of some aspect of that consent. Thus, what formerly were PUBLIC rights are sought by the franchisee to be either terminated or reduced, and thus:
2.1 New PRIVATE rights are created by the change in status.
2.2 The corpus of the PUBLIC trust under the franchise is correspondingly reduced.
3. Any interference with an attempt by a franchise participant to withdraw some aspect of consent represents an eminent domain through omission on the part of the government grantor of the franchise.
4. The injury sustained to the PRIVATE franchise officer (not the OFFICE, but the OFFICER) can be directly quantified by the PRIVATE rights taken away and involuntarily GIFTED to the franchise OFFICE by the refusal (willful omission) to reduce or change their status under the franchise.
5. A constitutional tort has been committed because an eminent domain is occurring, where the property stolen is quantified by the difference in obligations or rights between the two statuses. That difference is entirely PRIVATE rights.
To apply this concept to the status sought, LAATW, one could compare the obligations associated with a U.S. person with that of a nonresident. Some of those differences include:
1. Having to disclose foreign accounts.
2. Being subject to obamacare.
3. Being subject to ALL federal civil law.
4. Being the victim of criminal falsification of government records. See:
4.1 18 U.S.C. 1018
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/10184.2 18 U.S.C. 1002
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/10024.3 18 U.S.C. 1015
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/10154.4 18 U.S.C. 1028
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/10284.5 18 U.S.C. 1030: Fraud in connection with computers (the NUMIDENT is a computer record)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/10304.6 18 U.S.C. 911: Impersonating a u.s. citizen (a franchise status)
4.7 18 U.S.C. 1001
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001Once you make the status false and a failure to change it a crime, now you can:
1. Indict the judge for misprision of felony and being an accessory after the fact if he refuses to do something to correct the fraud.
2. Demand that the court and the government attorney MUST speak on this subject and cannot remain silent without committing a crime.
The remedy is a combination of statutory and constitutional. The domicile of the PRIVATE OFFICER in a state means you are still protected by the constitution, and that any franchise PUBLIC right they try to enforce that arises from a status that the OFFICE doesn’t have is eminent domain and THEFT. The pertinent statutes:
28 U.S.C. 1361: Action to compel an officer to do his duty.
28 U.S.C. 1331: Action arises under the constitution and not statutory law for the property taken. The property take is nonresident, as is the PRIVATE, nonstatutory person who owns the property.
This allows the plaintiff to essentially blackmail and discredit the judge and the U.S. Attorney for a failure to act in the record of the proceeding, which could affect their ability to get promoted or even disbarred or recused. Without a positive, demonstrated duty to SPEAK and ACT, they will ignore everything and call the case frivolous and dismiss it.
“Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit — and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d. 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985) — includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. When a judge is busily soliciting loans from counsel to one party, and not telling the opposing counsel (let alone the public), he is concealing material information in violation of his fiduciary obligations.”
McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987)“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
[U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021 (5th Cir. 1970)]
__________________________________________________________________________________
“Silence can be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities.”
[U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977)]
Some of the obligations incurred by incorrectly having the civil “U.S. citizen” status that can form the basis for quantifiable injuries and standing are listed in:
Why You are a “national”, Section 1.2
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdfNo doubt, the plaintiff will have to search far and wide for ALL the many negative ramifications of being a STATUTORY “U.S. citizen’, and that search will undoubtedly lead far beyond the above, but it is at least a starting point.
The beauty of using the criminal statutes as the basis for the injury is that you don’t have to quantify a SPECIFIC injury in the case of each violation, because you may not have been SPECIFICIALLY injured YET by virtue of having that obligation under federal law. The problem with Neo is that his case does not quantify a specific injury and therefore may be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b )(6) for lack of standing. Without a specific enumerated injury such as those listed above or a specific crime created by a FAILURE or REFUSAL or OMISSION in acting on the part of the SS Commissioner, his case will likely be dismissed.
Lastly, the remedy is found in recognizing that there are TWO potential parties to this suit: The PUBLIC OFFICE or the PRIVATE OFFICER who is being compelled to donate his formerly PRIVATE property to the office because of the governments willful refusal to change his civil status. This approach therefore requires that the plaintiff, Neo, be VERY clear that he is not filing the action as a public officer called a “benefit recipient”, but a PRIVATE, constitutionally protected party whose PRIVATE property is being reduced or forfeited by the WILLFUL FAILURE, REFUSAL, and OMISSION in changing the status to the correct value. The injury of the government basically boils down to REFUSING to recognize a status to which they have no jurisdiction over or which has no PUBLIC rights or jurisdiction attached to it. They are doing this because they don’t want to disconnect you from the matrix. Emphasizing the PRIVATE rights UNCONSTITUTIONALLY STOLEN (Fith Amendment Takings Clause) by their malicious refusal is the only thing in my humble estimation that can or will produce the result sought.
Quando duo juro concurrunt in und personâ, aequum est ac si essent in diversis. When two rights [public right v. private right] concur in one person, it is the same as if they were two separate persons. 4 Co. 118.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]
It is my personal feeling that neither alien status listed on the SS-5 (LAATW or LANATW) is relevant to a state citizen because congress has no jurisdiction over such a party and can neither ALLOW or DISALLOW them from working. Obviously, they DO have jurisdiction over such a party ONLY in the case of being abroad OR occupying a public office within the government. The reason is that they are protected by the Constitution unless and until they contract those rights away. They ONLY have jurisdiction over CONSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL aliens, not STATE aliens per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4. Hence, the only thing that can be checked is “other” on the SS-5 and DS-11. Hence, if I litigated this, I would litigate it for failure to change to “other” rather than “LAATW”. And under “Other”, I (the OFFICER and NOT the OFFICE) would classify myself as an statutory “nonresident alien NON-individual” and NOT an “alien”. Statutory “Nonresident aliens” are NOT a SUBSET of all “aliens”. This is clearly explained in:
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 19.3
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentAlienPosition.pdfObviously, this is a completely out of the box solution, but an elegant one that is more likely to produce a result and compel performance than the approach Neo is presently taking. It also FORCES the court to recognize:
1. The existence of PRIVATE rights beyond the control of government.
“It must be conceded that there are rights in every free government beyond the control of the State [or a covetous jury or majority of electors]. A government which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, liberty and property of its citizens, subject at all times to the disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all a despotism. It is true that it is a despotism of the many–of the majority, if you choose to call it so–but it is not the less a despotism.“
[Loan Ass’n v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 665 (1874)]
2. The dichotomy between PUBLIC and PRIVATE.
3. The dichotomy between the PUBLIC OFFICE and the PRIVATE OFFICER respectively.
4. The contractual or consensual connection BETWEEN the PUBLIC OFFICE and the PRIVATE OFFICER.
5. The discretion of the OFFICER to change his role or quit the office entirely.
6. The fact that statutes and public rights can only attach to the OFFICE and that the PUBLIC OFFICER is SURETY for the obligations of the office by express consent or agreement.
7. The government’s ONLY job in PROTECTING and maintaining SEPARATION between PUBLIC and PRIVATE, and thus PROTECTING the PRIVATE. This job was the ONLY reason they were created
8. The fact that if government won’t do THE ONLY job they were created to do, THEY NOT ONLY AREN’T A GOVERNMENT, but are a MAFIA protection racket!
9. The fact that government needs your CONTINUING consent (called COMITY) to either maintain or change your status, and if they don’t get it, they are STEALING. This is because ALL property in the corpus of the office is LOANED by the PUBLIC OFFICER for TEMPORARY use by the government as consideration for receiving the “benefit” sought.
10. The fact that anything not derived directly from ONGOING continuing consent is UNJUST, as per the declaration of independence.
11. The fact that the government is compelling the OFFICER to contract for things he/she does not want, does not need, and which he views as an INJURY and a CRIME to posses, rather than a “benefit”. Thus, he is being compelled to pay MORE for the services he seeks than he is either required to pay or consents to pay.
12. The fact that the entire corpus of property held by the OFFICE was originally LOANED rather than DONATED BY the OFFICER to the OFFICE and that loan can be revoked or recanted and represents a loan that comes with strings attached on the part of the government allowing the revocation.
13. That the “title” of the OFFICE is “person”.
14. The fact that the government is a government of DELEGATED AUTHORITY ALONE, and that you are withdrawing your consent and thereby withdrawing their delegated authority and jurisdiction in this specific franchise proceeding.
15. The fact that they are criminally tampering with a protected witness and interfering with your right to associate or disassociate if they try to argue with the status you declare.
That way they can’t use any word games to dodge the main issues.
The above subjects are exhaustively treated in the following, which can also be used as a Memorandum of Law exhibit in the original complaint:
Proof that there is a Straw Man, Form #05.042
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf
-
What you just said is consistent with:
Privileges and Immunities of State citizenship
http://books.google.com/books?id=dcInAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
The above book says that the comity clause of the constitution “removes the disabilities of alienage in other states”.
I wish you would stop asking for “permission” to have an opinion. That’s not how sovereigns operate.
-
1. In fact, the ONLY type of NRA recognized anywhere in the statutes or which has a duty to file a return is a Nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL. This is the ONLY statutory status one could possibly pursue in changing their status.
2. A person who quits the system can’t even have this status.
3. All “individuals” are public officers. Why would you want to change your status to be a DIFFERENT type of public officer, and especially in the context of your PRIVATE earnings? Stija alluded to this earlier and he was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
4. Nonresident alien NON-individuals and NON-persons are what our members become when they quit the system, so they have NO status and it is a crime and identity theft to even keep records on them, because they will be false.
5. Even the definition of NRA in 26 USC 7701(b )(1)(B ) is a NON-definition, because it defines what a nonresident alien IS NOT, and NOT what it is. This is because you can’t define what it is because as you said earlier, they have no jurisdiction over such people. That is the only position in which one can truly be FREE in a biblical sense.
6. They can’t give you a statute to acquire or recognize a civil status they have no jurisdiction over. That’s an oxymoron, as you explained earlier. The ONLY purpose for creating such statuses in the first place is to USURP enforcement authority they would not otherwise have. Why give it to them?
For details on this subject, see:
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 5FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentAlienPosition.pdf
The minute you adopt any civil status under their rules, then you have to follow ALL of them because you become a “person” or “individual”, both of whom are public officers. The only status you can have and still be free is “none of the above” or “exclusively private”, which is synonymous with “I don’t consent and therefore retain sovereign immunity”.
we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an [PRIVATE] individual and a [PUBLIC] corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Upon the other hand, the [PUBLIC] corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges.[Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)]
What part of “nothing” do you not understand? Men or women who owe “nothing” are a NON-“person”, NON-“individual”, and “nonresident alien NON-individual” under the I.R.C. Let me use your logical fallacy on you. Where in the statutes does it say that you CAN”T be a private “NON-person”?
If you are a PRIVATE man or woman when they try to enforce an obligation, THEY have the burden of showing that you voluntarily consented to the PUBLIC DUTIES associated with the “office of PERSON”. If they don’t satisfy that burden of proof, then you are presumed to have the SAME sovereign immunity as THEY have and are beyond their enforcement jurisdiction. Anyone who disrespects this legal boundary is liable for a constitutional tort. If they say they don’t have to respect YOUR EQUAL sovereign immunity, then THEY can’t have any either, because they got that authority from YOU and it was delegated BY you to them, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can’t civilly govern or enforce against those who are EQUAL, which is why we keep harping on EQUALITY.
HOWEVER, if one wants to change their status to a statutory “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL”, see section 26 of the above. Lessons learned doing what you are doing may be used to improve that section, we are told.
The closest they come to even recognizing a nontaxpayer and “non-person” is 26 USC 7425, but they don’t identify HOW to acquire that status. Even people with THAT status have to recognize ANOTHER person’s liability for tax before they have any statutory remedy AT ALL. That’s ridiculous! When you play by their rules, you ALWAYS lose, so don’t go chasing a status under their rules to begin with. But you keep wanting to find more ways to SLURP that government Kool-Aide. The lemmings keep trying to jump off the cliff, which is why the whole damn thing is going to EXPLODE right in front of your face and leave you with NOTHING in your old age. Uncle will either go bankrupt or you will DIE on the Obamacare waiting list before you collect anything just like Canadians already do. Mark my words.
-
Why would they hand the slaves the keys to their chains? You already said they wouldn’t. Why would you look in a perpetual, irrevocable employment or public officer agreement that is null and void on its face and a criminal trespass for those who are NOT public officer for the clause that allows you to quit?
All that I need to know is that they can’t enforce their employment agreement against a non-employee, and to very deliberately choose and describe that I am NOT on official business as their employee. This is covered in:
1. Federal Enforcement Authority within States of the Union, Form #05.032
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Why Your Government is Either A thief or You are a Public Officer for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
This is exactly what Hansen did in the injunction contempt hearing and it worked. There are no compromises and you can’t be half pregnant or half free. You can’t be sovereign and yet a government dependent receiving “benefits” at the same time. More logical fallacies.
Even a full time public officer has a right to be off duty, and to NOT devote their PRIVATE compensation to a public use, public office, or public purpose.
Even the American Jurisprudence legal encyclopedia recognizes that the earnings from franchises, even as a public officer, are PRIVATE:
“As a rule, franchises spring from contracts between the sovereign power and private citizens, made upon valuable considerations, for purposes of individual advantage as well as public benefit, [1] and thus a franchise partakes of a double nature and character. So far as it affects or concerns the public, it is publici juris and is subject to governmental control. The legislature may prescribe the manner of granting it, to whom it may be granted, the conditions and terms upon which it may be held, and the duty of the grantee to the public in exercising it, and may also provide for its forfeiture upon the failure of the grantee to perform that duty. But when granted, it becomes the property [PRIVATE PROPERTY] of the grantee, and is a private right, subject only to the governmental control growing out of its other nature as publici juris. [2]”
[Am.Jur.2d., Franchises, §4: Generally (1999)]
[1] Georgia R. & Power Co. v. Atlanta, 154 Ga. 731, 115 S.E. 263; Lippencott v. Allander, 27 Iowa 460; State ex rel. Hutton v. Baton Rouge, 217 La. 857, 47 So.2d. 665; Tower v. Tower & S. Street R. Co. 68 Minn 500, 71 N.W. 691.
[2] Georgia R. & Power Co. v. Atlanta, 154 Ga. 731, 115 S.E. 263; Lippencott v. Allander, 27 Iowa 460; State ex rel. Hutton v. Baton Rouge, 217 La. 857, 47 So.2d. 665; Tower v. Tower & S. Street R. Co. 68 Minn 500, 71 N.W. 691.
Where IN THEIR STATUTES, does it say that PRIVATE earnings, EVEN FROM A PUBLIC OFFICE are PUBLIC PROPERTY or TRADE OR BUSINESS earnings? NEITHER the Internal Revenue Code nor the SS Act CREATE any new public offices within constitutional states. Hence, they create no new “taxpayers”. If you disagree, show me THEIR statute that creates these NEW offices or expressly converts PRIVATE property to PRESUMED PUBLIC property. No presumptions PLEASE. In the absence of such EXPRESS declaration (in positive law, which the I.R.C. is NOT), the Tenth Amendment reserves ALL rights to the People and the States.
-
There is NOT only one way:
1. Use a foreign address.
2. File a 1040NR from a foreign address.
3. Correct your u.s. passport.
4. Remove yourself from ss entirely.
…etc, etc.
-
Neo,
What you propose to follow is not “LAW” as classically defined, but STATUTES that implement franchises. Even a Harvard law professor, Roscoe Pound, agrees with us on this subject. What he calls “compact” is synonymous with what franchises and contracts are. The basis of the subject he is discussing is the COMMON LAW, which is founded entirely upon ABSOLUTE EQUALITY of ALL:
Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.”
[. . .]
It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, “I will, or will not, do this”; that of a law is, “thou shalt, or shalt not, do it.” It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be “a rule.”
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]
REAL LAW respects and protects the ABSOLUTE EQUALITY of all under God’s law and the supreme law. Franchises DESTROY equality and make the government into a supernatural power and parens patriae, but ALL are equal under God’s law. Even President Obama said so in his inauguration speech! Are you gonna call him a liar? We’d probably agree with you if you did! 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju0RrtqfX94
Obedient Christians cannot submit or consent to any system of law that creates inequality because it produces idolatry that violates the Ten Commandments. For an instructive video on the subject, see:
For an exhaustive treatment of this subject, see:
Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf
What Neo proposes is anarchy and lawlessness under God’s law and yet Phariseeical idolatry under man’s law. Devout Christians cannot have it both ways. Jesus was an anarchist in respect to man’s laws:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituality/ChurchvState/JesusAnarchist.htmWe must choose WHOM we will serve. No man can serve two masters and that is EXACTLY what Neo proposes. Putting obedience or allegiance to Caesar above God violates the Ten Commandments and proposes and promotes anarchy under God’s law.
“But as for me and my house, WE WILL SERVE [ONLY] THE LORD!”
[Josh. 24:15, Bible, NKJV]
We are commanded to always strive for God’s law order. The source of law is the God in any society. Neo proposes to place man’s law above God’s law. See:
The Unlimited Liability Universe
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituality/Articles/UnlimitedLiabilityUniverse.htmEven doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons, is bad.
Jesus said that those who place loyalty to family or comfort above truth and righteousness are not worthy of Him, and yet these very goals are the only justifications you propose for your misplaced priorities. We have made no “ASSumptions” on this subject. The ONLY defense you have offered basically is that you don’t want to be “uncool” with your family. If you have others, please reveal what those are, because we can’t honestly think of any:
Christ Brings Division
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’[e]37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
[Matt. 10:34-39, Bible, NKJV; SOURCE: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010&version=NKJV]
By no means is Neo the only one with this kind of “cognitive dissonance” or logical fallacy. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/) We do not mean to single him out. This is a very common problem. Many others even in the freedom community have his same misplaced priorities and logical fallacies. This problem is not unique to him, and hence we do not intend to attack him personally on this subject. Bob Hurt (a famous freedom personality from the Lawmen group), for instance, beats his chest and says he should be free, and yet supports himself entirely and exclusively off a Social Security check that he admits he is not entitled to. In a recent conversation, he said that those who receive government benefits should be disenfranchised. When he was told that he should be included in that list as a social security recipient, he became completely irrational in defending his right to collect the plunder. Even close family members have the same problem, and it is very frustrating to deal with them because socialism and self-interest divides rather than unites people. This may be why the U.S. Supreme Court called socialism a “war on capital” in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust: Because it pits the HAVE NOTS against the HAVES, and makes the voting booth and the jury booth into the battleground.
“Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that go down to the very foundation of the government. If the provisions of the constitution can be set aside by an act of congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich,-a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness. ‘If the court sanctions the power of discriminating taxation, and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the constitution,’ as said by one who has been all his life a student of our institutions, ‘it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our present government will commence.‘ If the purely arbitrary limitation of four thousand dollars in the present law can be sustained, none having less than that amount of income being assessed or taxed for the support of the government, the limitation of future congresses may be fixed at a much larger sum, at five or ten or twenty thousand dollars, parties possessing an income of that amount alone being bound to bear the burdens of government; or the limitation may be designated at such an amount as a board of ‘walking delegates’ may deem necessary. There is no safety in allowing the limitation to be adjusted except in strict compliance with the mandates of the constitution, which require its taxation, if imposed by direct taxes, to be apportioned among the states according to their representation, and, if imposed by indirect taxes, to be uniform in operation and, so far as practicable, in proportion to their property, equal upon all citizens. Unless the rule of the constitution governs, a majority may fix the limitation at such rate as will not include any of their own number.”
[Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)]
All that Neo proves with his flawed advocacy is that he is on the WRONG side of this “war”. Making slaves out of one’s own children at gunpoint and making them a casualty of this “war” could hardly be termed “in the best interests of the child” in a family court. It’s cannibalism, not parenting if it is enforced at gun point as the tax system is. The least any self-respecting and God-fearing parent can and should do is give their own children a CHOICE as to whether to support their parents in their old age. Instead, Neo proposes to hand Uncle a Gun to perform a stick up on them and even pay for the gun with his withholding and endorse the abuse of the gun as a jurist and voter. That’s not being law abiding under either man’s law or God’s law-that’s being a criminal. That is why Justice Scalia says that the law DESTROYS families:
SEDM Exhibit #03.005
http://famguardian1.org/Mirror/SEDM/Exhibits/EX03.005.wmv
The only reason anything we say on this subject could truthfully be called “righteous” to begin with is because it is in conflict with our own self (fleshly) interest and in complete harmony with scripture. In fact, we couldn’t truthfully be classified as a religious ministry if we spoke for ourselves instead of God. All legitimate religious ministries are fiduciaries, agents, trustees, and public officers of the Kingdom of Heaven, Inc. and of NO OTHER. 🙂
“I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.”
[Jesus in John 5:30, Bible, NKJV]
What we have said and emphasized on this site about our desire to learn and promote the law needs to be qualified by defining what we mean by “law”. Franchises are not “law” in a classical or common law sense, but merely contracts or agreement or what Roscoe Pound calls “compacts” that Christians cannot consent to (without committing MUTINY) and which therefore can NEVER acquire the “force of law” against a devout and OBEDIENT Christian:
“I [God] brought you up from Egypt [slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract or franchise or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.‘ But you have not obeyed Me. Why have you done this?
“Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.'”
So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.
[Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]
No amount of philosophizing or rationalizing can remove the fundamental cognitive dissonance and therefore logical fallacy that Neo proposes. It simply can’t be the truth, because it conflicts with itself and with scripture. Love rejoices in TRUTH, not in self-gratification, trusting Caesar rather than God for “benefits”, or “feeding the flesh”.
Don’t shoot the messenger, Neo. God is the source. If readers don’t like what God has to say on the subject, then they must either admit they are disobedient or admit that He isn’t God and that they are taking his place as god, just like Lucifer and the serpent. Anyone who puts their own desires above God’s law is practicing idolatry and violating the Ten Commandments. Any attempt to invalidate the Bible as a law book in these forums is anarchy under God’s law that gets members expelled, according to the forum rules.
The worse that could be said about what we propose is that it is idealistic and possibly even impractical. But “practicality” is synonymous with feeding the flesh and thereby placing man above god.
Logical fallacies are the “fig leaf” that deceivers hide behind, just like Adam and Eve after they ate the fruit. Government is famous for such fallacies, and now we have yet another government public officer spreading them here in these forums. If Neo’s goal was to literally play “devil’s advocate” in these forums, he’s doing a good job by encouraging everyone to take the franchise trap bait and become government property and chattel in the process. Drink that government Kool-Aide. SLURP! SLURP! Would you expect anything less from someone who took the franchise bait hook line and sinker as a true public officer in the U.S. military?
With all due respect, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do, or refuse to admit the fallacy or hypocrisy or deceit of what they do.
🙂