fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
1. The notarized contract of sale to buy the land is proof of ownership.
2. After the property is sold it is UNRECORDED from the records to remove it from the Torrens Act land registration franchise. To UNRECORD the property, record a deed of sale but don't identify the new owner. Simply have the previous owner say that he is no longer the owner.
3. Then the contract is recorded NOT as a deed but a simple contract, and recorded OUTSIDE the county where the land is located so that the owner is not availing themselves of PRIVILEGES of the county in which the property is located.
Those are the basics we know of.
Please DO NOT post the same question more than once. It needlessly clutters the forums and forces multiple answers. We deleted your other similar post.
-
Explain WHY, in light of the earlier explanation re
1. The Fifth Amendment
2. The Thirteenth Amendment.
3. FRCP 17(b ), and the choice of law rules.
4. The limitation of CIVIL jurisdiction over CONSTITUTIONAL aliens to the immigration and naturalization function ONLY within a state.
5. The absence of express authority in the Constitution to compel violations of the Fifth Amendment and Thirteenth Amendment for the sake of compelling the FBAR filings.
6. The limitation of STATUTORY terms to their GEOGRAPHIC and not POLITICAL context in order that courts can avoid the prohibition against entertaining “political questions” …and by implication “political definitions”.
Your conclusions are inconsistent with our treatment with each and every thing we have said so far on the subject. Your failure to deny constitutes an admission that you must be confused or in error, because anyone who contradicts themselves cannot be telling the truth.
We wouldn't argue on the subject of counterfeiting as a matter of principal. Few people would. But any and every other franchise not appearing in the constitution does NOT allow for “punishment” much less enforcement within any geographical state. Counterfeiting and offenses on the high seas (admiralty) are the ONLY subject matters in the constitution that expressly authorize a punishment. The FBAR situation is DIFFERENT. It isn't dealing with a constitutional power and therefore MUST be limited to EITHER:
1. Federal territory under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.
2. Government offices under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.
What is “BSA”? Is that the Banking Secrecy Act? The Banking Secrecy Act only pertains to public officers with enumerated accounts. It doesn't affect private NONRESIDENT parties with no enumeration. That subject is discussed in:
Proof That There is a Straw Man, Form #05.042, Section 10.7
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…aw/StrawMan.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
I'll bet that every instance where the BSA was declared constitutional EVADED the issues raised in the above section and therefore improperly applied the BSA FRANCHISE to the conduct of PRIVATE parties who are unenumerated and unenfranchised, such as nonresident alien NON-individual NON-taxpayers.
I'm sure you know that the CTR reports filed under the BSA may not lawfully be filed against those NOT engaged in a statutory “trade or business”, which is limited ONLY to “the functions f a public office” per 26 USC 7701(a)(26). Therefore, they don't apply to exclusively private NONRESIDENT parties. This is proven in:
Demand for Verified Evidence of “Trade or Business” Activity: Currency Transaction Report, Form #04.008
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…usiness-CTR.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The filing of these reports against those OTHER than public officers, such as state domiciled nonresident parties, is a crime and a tort. We argue that the FBAR is the SAME old CRAP implemented a slightly different way, where the “U.S. citizen and resident” who is the subject of the report, like the CTR, is ALSO a public officer. FDR did the same thing when he outlawed gold in 1933, because he applied it to “U.S. citizens”, who were all public officers. He started this scam.
The Worrall case earlier explained WHY they can only impose duties like the FBAR upon public officers. Let me repeat it here again:
Quote:“It is true, that the person who accepts an office may be supposed to enter into a compact to be answerable to the government, which he serves, for any violation of his duty; and, having taken the oath of office, he would unquestionably be liable, in such case, to a prosecution for perjury in the Federal Courts. But because one man, by his own act, renders himself amenable to a particular jurisdiction, shall another man, who has not incurred a similar obligation, be implicated? If, in other words, it is sufficient to vest a jurisdiction in this court, that a Federal Officer is concerned; if it is a sufficient proof of a case arising under a law of the United States to affect other persons, that such officer is bound, by law, to discharge his duty with fidelity; a source of jurisdiction is opened, which must inevitably overflow and destroy all the barriers between the judicial authorities of the State and the general government. Any thing which can prevent a Federal Officer from the punctual, as well as from an impartial, performance of his duty; an assault and battery; or the recovery of a debt, as well as the offer of a bribe, may be made a foundation of the jurisdiction of this court; and, considering the constant disposition of power to extend the sphere of its influence, fictions will be resorted to, when real cases cease to occur. A mere fiction, that the defendant is in the custody of the marshall, has rendered the jurisdiction of the King's Bench universal in all personal actions.”[United States v. Worrall, 2 U.S. 384 (1798)
To close the analysis, here is the dictionary definition of “fictions” mentioned by the above Worrall court:
Quote:Fiction of law. An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place. An assumption [PRESUMPTION], for purposes of justice, of a fact that does not or may not exist. A rule of law which assumes as true, and will not allow to be disproved, something which is false, but not impossible. Ryan v. Motor Credit Co., 30 N.J.Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621. These assumptions are of an innocent or even beneficial character, and are made for the advancement of the ends of justice. They secure this end chiefly by the extension of procedure from cases to which it is applicable to other cases to which it is not strictly applicable, the ground of inapplicability being some difference of an immaterial character. See also Legal fiction.[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 623]
The purpose of “fictions of law” is “justice” for BOTH parties that are the subject of the legal dispute, not JUST the government. If it doesn't benefit BOTH parties, then equal protection has been violated and INjustice rather than justice results. In other words, PRESUMING jurisdiction where none exists is a FRAUD. Fraud involves SUPPOSING that something is true which is NOT for the intended benefit of only ONE of the two parties. All presumptions which violate constitutional rights are impermissible, including the PRESUMPTION of jurisdiction:
Quote:“The power to create presumptions [INCLUDING 'fictions of law'] is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.” -
In practice, the way such counterfietting cases are prosecuted is:
1. The secret service identifies the offender.
2. The municipal police and the fbi raid the premises and arrest the counterfeiter.
3. Once in custody, the crime committed outside the territory and exclusive jurisdiction fo the US is prosecuted FALSELY AND FRAUDULENTLY as though it WERE committed on the territory.
4. When the defendant challenges jurisdiction, the judge calls it FRIVIOLOUS, which itself is frivolous because you can't enforce the laws of one country or jurisdiction inside that of another. In effect, by giving the FORCE of law to that which has no force, he is acting in a legislative rather than judicial capacity.
5. The enforcement action is an exercise of police power, because it involves an arrest.
In fact, what has happened, is that they are engaging in acts of international terrorism and kidnapping the offender in a legislatively foreign state, because the definitions they provide do not EXPRESSLY authorize such an action. Where the statutes do not expressly authorize the geographical place of the alleged crime, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that such an act of “police powers” cannot lawfully be exercised.
Quote:“It should never be held that Congress intends to supersede or by its legislation suspend the exercise of the police powers of the States, even when it may do so, unless its purpose to effect that result is clearly manifested.”[Reid v. Colorado, 187 U.S. 137, 148]
“”The police power extends not only to things intrinsically dangerous to the public health, such as infected rags or diseased meat, but to things which, when used in a lawful manner, are subjects of property and of commerce, and yet may be used so as to be injurious or dangerous to the life, the health, or the morals of the people.”
“The most the FCC can claim is linguistic ambiguity. But such a claim does not help the FCC, for relevant precedent makes clear that, when faced with ambiguity, we are to interpret statutes of this kind on the assumption that Congress intended to preserve local authority. See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504, 518(1992) (“presumption against the pre-emption of state police power regulations”); Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230(1947) (requiring “clear and manifest” showing of congressional intent to supplant traditional state police powers).”
““Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100.Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 581]
_________________________________
The solution, and the only solution of the difficulty, is, that the power vested in Congress, as the legislature of the United States, to legislate exclusively within any place ceded by a State, carries with it, as an incident, the right to make that power effectual. If a felon escape out of the State in which the act has been committed, the government cannot pursue him into another State, and apprehend him there, but must demand him from the executive power of that other State. If Congress were to be considered merely as the local legislature for the fort or other place in which the offence might be committed, then this principle would apply to them as to other local [19 U.S. 264, 429] legislatures, and the felon who should escape out of the fort, or other place, in which the felony may have been committed, could not be apprehended by the marshal, but must be demanded from the executive of the State. But we know that the principle does not apply; and the reason is, that Congress is not a local legislature, but exercises this particular power, like all its other powers, in its high character, as the legislature of the Union. The American people thought it a necessary power, and they conferred it for their own benefit. Being so conferred, it carries with it all those incidental powers which are necessary to its complete and effectual execution.
Whether any particular law be designed to operate without the District or not, depends on the words of that law. If it be designed so to operate, then the question, whether the power so exercised be incidental to the power of exclusive legislation, and be warranted by the constitution, requires a consideration of that instrument. In such cases the constitution and the law must be compared and construed. This is the exercise of jurisdiction. It is the only exercise of it which is allowed in such a case. For the act of Congress directs, that 'no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground or reversal, in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the before mentioned questions of validity or construction of the said constitution, treaties,'.
The “purpose to effect the result” they are talking about above is NOT “clearly manifested” unless the definitions CLEARLY and EXPRESSLY “include” the geographic states of the Union. Any attempt to divorce territory and EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction from a specific criminal or civil law turns de jure government into a de facto one. At the point that separation between the territory and the Civil/Criminal law is made, we cease to have a government and end up with a mafia protection racket. Even Worral earlier identified how that MAFIA works: By kidnapping people at gun point who offended laws outside their territory.
Furthermore, FRNs are technically not “money” as constitutionally defined, and therefore the counterfeitting statutes don't apply anyway. Therefore, they aren't enforcing a constitutional duty because no real “money” is involved. It's entirely a de facto system they have for enforcement, because NONE of it is expressly authorized by the constitution. It looks legal to the neophyte, but its ALL fraud, like virtually EVERYTHING that the present government does or claims the authority to do.
Might DOES NOT make RIGHT, and kidnapping someone for committing a crime outside the territory of the state it applies to is international terrorism, not justice. Purely under the laws of equity, such an approach produces ANARCHY because then any country can make criminals of ANYONE in ANY OTHER COUNTRY, to the point where no one can or would want to travel outside their country for fear of being apprehended and arrested at the airport, just like world chess champion Bobby Fischer was.
Brilliant World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer was aware of this FRAUD and rebelled against it. Congress passed a law criminalizing his participation in chess championships in eastern block communist countries OUTSIDE the country United States. He violated that law in question and said it was bogus by attending a championship in then communist Yugoslavia. When a warrant was issued for his arrest, he found refuge in Japan for most of the rest of his life. When they tried to extradite him from Japan to the USA to face trial LONG AFTER the statute of limitations for the prosecution of said DE FACTO crime, he was offered political asylum and citizenship in Iceland because they agreed he was a “political prisoner”. He later died in Iceland with his Japanese wife by his side. Below is his story. Incidentally, I was a chess champion at a school I attended and he was my role model. I bought and followed his book on chess:
http://en.wikipedia….i/Bobby_Fischer
The people who are the subject of this kind of political persecution and TERRORISM are in fact “political prisoners”. Bobby Fischer was one of them. There is no practical difference between doing this and invading another non-consenting country. The same CRAP is going in at Guatanamo Bay, Cuba against alleged “terrorists” and it's simply DESPICABLE.
As we say in our domicile article:
Quote:Domicile is an EXTREMELY important subject to learn because it defines and circumscribes:- The boundary between what is legislatively “foreign” and legislatively “domestic” in relation to a specific jurisdiction. Everyone domiciled OUTSIDE a specific jurisdiction is legislatively and statutorily “foreign” in relation to that civil jurisdiction. Note that you can be DOMESTIC from a CONSTITUTIONAL perspective and yet ALSO be FOREIGN from a legislative jurisdiction AT THE SAME TIME. This is true of the relationship of most Americans with the national government.
- The boundary between what is LEGAL speech and POLITICAL speech. For everyone not domiciled in a specific jurisdiction, the civil law of that jurisdiction is POLITICAL and unenforceable. Since real constitutional courts cannot entertain political questions, then they cannot act in a political capacity against nonresidents.
[SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm]
Any attempt to influence the behavior of someone by threatening them with laws that can't be enforced or which don't apply to the place they are at is TERRORISM. Here is the definition of “Terrorism” to prove it:
Quote:terrorism. “Act of terrorism” means an activity that involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and appears to be intended–(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. 18 U.S.C.A. §3077.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1473]
Quoting irrelevant law outside its territory is intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population”. Civil and criminal laws are POLITICAL SPEECH outside the country and territory they are passed for. Fraudulently using such POLITICAL speech AS THOUGH it had the “force of law” is a criminal act. That crime is called “simulating legal process”:
Quote:Oregon Revised Statutes162.355 Simulating legal process.
(1) A person commits the crime of simulating legal process if, with the intent to harass, injure or defraud another person, the person knowingly issues or delivers to another person any document that in form and substance falsely simulates civil or criminal process.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) “Civil or criminal process” means a document or order, including, but not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading or subpoena, that is issued by a court or that is filed or recorded for the purpose of:
(A) Exercising jurisdiction;
(B ) Representing a claim against a person or property;
(C ) Directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal; or
(D) Directing a person to perform or refrain from performing a specified act.
(b ) “Person” has the meaning given that term in ORS 161.015, except that in relation to a defendant, “person” means a human being, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association or a partnership.
(3) Simulating legal process is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §210; 1997 c.395 §1; 2005 c.2 §1]
Most states have statutes like the above. Ironically, they are primarily used against freedom fighters and are seldom used against their WORST offender, which is the corrupted federal government.
-
An entire memorandum has been written on what “political sense” means. See:
Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.004
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…urisdiction.pdf
By political sense the above document establishes that what is meant is:
1. A state as a political entity and not a geographica entity.
2. Those who have allegiance to the entity and are a member of that specific political community. Said membership can only be “activated” by choosing a domicile within the geographic territory associated with the entity.
The discussion started out initially relating to a CIVIL obligation of filing an FBAR. Criminal consequences of NOT filing are entirely separate and I agree that FRCP 17 does not apply. However, it applies INDIRECTLY, because the SAME jurisdiction must apply to both. You can't CRIMINALLY enforce failure to satisfy a CIVIL obligation you don't have to perform.
Here is how the early U.S. Supreme Court addressed a case of bribery of a public officer by a person that occurred OUTSIDE of federal territory. They identified their source of jurisdiction as follows:
Quote:“But, it may be suggested, that the office being established by a law of the United States, it is an incident naturally attached to the authority of the United States, to guard the officer against the approaches of corruption, in the execution of his public trust. It is true, that the person who accepts an office may be supposed to enter into a compact to be answerable to the government, which he serves, for any violation of his duty; and, having taken the oath of office, he would unquestionably be liable, in such case, to a prosecution for perjury in the Federal Courts. But because one man, by his own act, renders himself amenable to a particular jurisdiction, shall another man, who has not incurred a similar obligation, be implicated? If, in other words, it is sufficient to vest a jurisdiction in this court, that a Federal Officer is concerned; if it is a sufficient proof of a case arising under a law of the United States to affect other persons, that such officer is bound, by law, to discharge his duty with fidelity; a source of jurisdiction is opened, which must inevitably overflow and destroy all the barriers between the judicial authorities of the State and the general government. Any thing which can prevent a Federal Officer from the punctual, as well as from an impartial, performance of his duty; an assault and battery; or the recovery of a debt, as well as the offer of a bribe, may be made a foundation of the jurisdiction of this court; and, considering the constant disposition of power to extend the sphere of its influence, fictions will be resorted to, when real cases cease to occur. A mere fiction, that the defendant is in the custody of the marshall, has rendered the jurisdiction of the King's Bench universal in all personal actions. Another fiction, which states the Plaintiff to be a debtor of the Crown, gives cognizance of all kinds of personal suits to the Exchequer: And the mere profession of an Attorney attaches the privilege of suing and being sued in his own Court. If, therefore, the disposition to amplify the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court exists, precedents of the means to do so are not wanting, and it may hereafter be sufficient to suggest, that the party is a Federal Officer, in order to enable this Court to try every species of crime, and to sustain every description of action.”[United States v. Worrall, 2 U.S. 384 (1798)
SOURCE: http://scholar.googl…=en&as_sdt=4,60]
In the above case, the court admitted that a “fiction” was resorted to to usurp jurisdiction because no legal authority could be found. PRESUMING the POLITICAL rather than GEOGRAPHICAL sense of the term “State” as you are doing is an example of yet another “fiction”. The fact that the defendant was in custody created the jurisdiction. It didn't exist before they KIDNAPPED him. Notice also that they mention an implied “compact” or contract related to the office being exercised, and that THAT compact was the source of their jurisdiction over the officer who was bribed.
The reason for the controversy in the above case was that the bribe occurred on state land by a nonresident domiciled in the state, and therefore that federal law did not apply.
SCUM BAGS.
-
1. Settled.
2. The “state” we were referring to is a constitutional and not statutory state under federal law. Hence, we agree with you that the territories and possessions you mention are “states” under federal law, they are not “States” under the CONSTITUTION.
The civil legislative authority you mention over federal property within the states only extends to federal officers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ), not to private human beings who are neither statutory aliens nor those NOT occupying offices within the United States federal corporation. In other words, they can't regulate PRIVATE conduct, and everyone who is not a PUBLIC OFFICER is presumed to be PRIVATE.
If you disagree, show us a provision within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ) that authorizes them to CIVILLY sue you in federal civil court for mishandling their property as an EXCLUSIVELY private party not VOLUNTARILY engaging in a federal office or franchise. It isn't there. They have to go to a STATE court and the only way around this problem is to make you into an officer, usually through DECEIT using statutory franchise terms such as “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc.
3. You can't mix STATUTORY and POLITICAL contexts arbitrarily and you should not PRESUME that you can. Show me a rule of statutory construction that permits this. I gave you the cites on federal jurisdiction and all of them relate to the term “TERRITORY”, and NOT to the POLITICAL or VIRTUAL sense.
Quote:“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.]
The only context in which the POLTICAL context can be used is in a POLITICAL source of law, such as the constitution. It has no place in statutes that I am aware of. POLITICAL and LEGISLATIVE jurisdictions are and always have been mutually exclusive. Political is always relative to the constitution. STATUTORY/LEGISLATIVE is always relative to federal territory. This is the SAME argument we used to explain why you can't be a STATUTORY “citizen” under federal law, and you never argued against that approach. But now you are arguing against it in a slightly different but related context. By doing so, you contradict yourself, which means you must be wrong.
I don't think its safe or even relevant to apply dictionary definitions to the term “State” in this context. The term in all legislation can only have a territorial significance and not a political significance, because ALL statutory law is territorial per the U.S. Supreme Court. You're mixing apples and oranges and don't understand context ONCE AGAIN. And the “territory” they are talking about is land subject to the EXCLUSIVE and not SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress has SUBJECT MATTER and not EXCLUSIVE or GENERAL civil jurisdiction within states of the Union. Naturalization is but one such type of SUBJECT matter jurisdiction, but there are others such as patents, copyrights, and Constitutional rights violation actions under 42 USC 1983. Recall that 42 USC 1982 implements the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and is useful ONLY against CONSTITUTIONAL STATE actors.
You need to read the Federal Jurisdiction pamphlet, Form #05.018. Pay close attention to the CHOICE OF LAW sections. You don't understand basic choice of law concepts. Section 3 et seq deals with choice of law.
-
Neo,
You make three presumptions in your analysis that we disagree with:
1. That Congress has ANY kind of civil legislative authority it wants over constitutional aliens.
2. That Congress has civil legislative authority within a state.
3. That the term “State”, if NOT defined geographically, implies the POLITICAL and not STATUTORY sense.
Discussion of why NONE of the above presumptions are accurate.
1. Authority over constitutional aliens.
The only civil authority congress has over constitutional aliens is control over immigration and naturalization under Title 8. Every other type of civil authority request either a domicile on federal territory or an office in that national government that would extend the jurisdiction to the officer wherever he or she may be under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ).
Jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization of constitutional aliens is provided for in the constitution:
Quote:Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
[SOURCE: http://caselaw.lp.fi…tion/article01/]
2. Civil Legislative authority within a state.
Congress has not civil legislative authority within a constitutional state, except in federal areas ceded to them or owned by them. This is established by 40 USC 3111 and 3112 and its predecessor, 40 USC 255 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ).
3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ) and civil “choice of law” rules
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ) identifies the choice of law in all civil matters in federal court. It only offers THREE sources of jurisdiction:
1. Acting in a representative capacity on behalf of an entity domiciled on federal territory (17(b )(1)).
2. Being a federal corporation chartered under federal and not state law. (17(b )(2)).
3. Having a domicile on federal and not state territory subject to the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of federal law. (17(b )(3)).
Here is the text:
Quote:IV. PARTIES > Rule 17.Rule 17. Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity
(b ) Capacity to Sue or be Sued.
Capacity to sue or be sued is determined as follows:
(1) for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity, by the law of the individual's domicile;
(2) for a corporation, by the law under which it was organized; and
(3) for all other parties, by the law of the state where the court is located, except that:
(A) a partnership or other unincorporated association with no such capacity under that state's law may sue or be sued in its common name to enforce a substantive right existing under the United States Constitution or laws; and
(b ) 28 U.S.C. §§754 and 959(a) govern the capacity of a receiver appointed by a United States court to sue or be sued in a United States court.
It is a fact that you cannot have a domicile in TWO places at the same time, and that there is a geographic separation between the state jurisdiction and the national jurisdiction. This is because you cannot owe primary allegiance to more than one sovereign at a time. It is also a fact that unless you as a state domiciled non-citizen national under federal civil law can be sued, then you cannot lawfully ALSO become the subject of any federal civil enforcement action.
Quote:“A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges.“
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]
4. The Fifth Amendment
Aside from these requirements, it is also a fact that you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself under the Fifth Amendment. The act of penalizing or prosecuting a person for failing to file an FBAR that in fact does exactly this is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The ONLY way to obviate this conflict of laws is for the legal “person” who is the subject of the requirement to be a public office in the government and not the OFFICER filling said office. We have always argued that statutory “U.S. citizens” and “U.S. residents” is a franchise status and an office in the government and is NOT a private human being. See:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not statutory Citizen, Sections 3 and 4
http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdf
The public rights and obligations associated with the filing of an FBAR are prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment from being associated with a human being EXCEPT BY EXPRESS CONSENT, EVEN ON federal territory. Therefore, the ONLY legal “person” they can be talking about is a franchisee, just like the tax code. The definition of “United States” does not add anything but unnecessary confusion to the equation. That confusion is delibarate, as you have already pointed out.
Below is a cite from the US Supreme Court proving that aliens, while in constitutional states, are STILL protected by the bill of rights from abuse by both the states AND the federal government. Included in these protections is the Fifth Amendment mentioned here. The “aliens” and “citizens” being discussed imply the CONSTITUTIONAL context, and NOT the STATUTORY context, because they are talking about constitutional violations. Statutory aliens domiciled on federal territory have no such protections, so they are speaking clearly about constitutional aliens and the “citizens” they are talking about are state domiciled STATUTORY non-citizen nationals:
Quote:There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 48-51, 70 S.Ct. 445, 453-455, 94 L.Ed. 616, 627-629; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238, 16 S.Ct. 977, 981, 41 L.Ed. 140, 143; see Russian Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481, 489, 51 S.Ct. 229, 231, 75 L.Ed. 473, 476. Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection. Wong Yang Sung, supra ; Wong Wing, supra.The fact that all persons, aliens and citizens alike, are protected by the Due Process Clause does not lead to the further conclusion that all aliens are entitled to enjoy all the advantages of citizenship or, indeed, to the conclusion that all aliens must be placed in a single homogeneous legal classification. For a host of constitutional and statutory provisions rest on the premise that a legitimate distinction between citizens and aliens may justify attributes and benefits for one class not accorded to the other; 12 and the class of aliens is itself a heterogeneous multitude of persons with a wide-ranging variety of ties to this country.13
[Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1975)
SOURCE: http://scholar.googl…=en&as_sdt=4,60]
5. Use of Social Security Number on the FBAR
We agree that the use of SSNs/TINs on the FBAR or any other federal form creates a prima facie presumption that the filer is a public officer on official business, and therefore the REAL statutory “U.S. citizen” or “U.S. resident” who is the subject of the requirement.
6. Meaning of the term “State” in re “United States” under Title 31
We are not aware of any rule of statutory construction that agrees with your PRESUMPTION that if an ordinarily geographical word is NOT defined geographically, then it must be used POLITICALLY. Please provide the proof. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that all law is PRIMA FACIE territorial, meaning GEOGRAPHICAL. Hence, this defeats your presumption:
Quote:“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.]
Federal civil statutes cannot extend beyond federal territory, which is where the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of congress is limited. The ONLY way to extend their reach beyond this point to a state domiciled party is ONE of the following three methods identified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ):
1. The party is a public officer REPRESENTING the United States federal corporation. Since the corporation is domiciled in D.C., then the officer is treated as having the same domicile in the context of their official duties. FRCP 17(b )(1).
2. The party represents a corporation or artificial entity domiciled on federal territory. FRCP 17(b )(2).
3. The party declares a domicile on federal territory. FRCP 17(b )(3).
All three of the above are franchises of one kind or another. Those who are not franchisees cannot become the subject of them.
Another way of stating the above is that the government cannot civilly “govern” you without your consent, as the Declaration of Independence indicates. Therefore, it is your CONSENT in some form that creates the civil statutory “U.S. citizen”, “U.S. resident”, or “person” who is the only lawful subject of the civil statutory laws of a specific government. This is covered in:
Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003, Section 10.1
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…Law/Consent.pdf
FORMS PAGE http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
7. Civil jurisdiction over constitutional aliens extends ANYWHERE or to any subject matter
We disagree that the civil jurisdiction over constitutional aliens extends to ANYTHING that congress wants to pass. In fact, it is limited ONLY to ” the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens“. Otherwise, state domiciled foreign nationals would have divided allegiance, and would need TWO domiciles simultaneously, which is an impossibility and violates the laws on most states pertaining to serving in DUAL state and federal offices simultaneously.
Quote:” In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. The exclusion of aliens14 and the reservation of the power to deport15 have no permissible counterpart in the Federal Government's power to regulate the conduct of its own citizenry.16[. . .]
“Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534, provides the strongest support for appellees' position. That case holds that state statutes that deny welfare benefits to resident aliens, or to aliens not meeting a requirement of durational residence within the United States, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and encroach upon the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens.”
[Matthews v. Diaz, 426 U.S 67 (1976)
SOURCE: http://scholar.googl…=en&as_sdt=4,60]
8. Constitutional judges cannot entertain “political questions” and therefore cannot use POLITICAL contexts for definitions
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the true constitutional judges cannot entertain political questions in Luther v. Borden. Hence, indirectly they cannot USE “political definitions” for words. All statutory words must therefore use the GEOGRAPHICAL rather than POLITICAL context.
For further details, see:
Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.004
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…urisdiction.pdf
The designer of our current republican government and the person upon whom the Founding Fathers relied, Montesqui, agreed that ordinary citizens should NOT be subject to the “political law”, meaning LAW FOR GOVERNMENT ONLY. See:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 3.7 and 20.2
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/Franchises.pdf
9. Conclusion
The power to require FBARS originates from Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14:
Quote:To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
All public officers are part of the GOVERNMENT. They have NO DELEGATED POWER to make “rules” to regulate the CIVIL conduct of PRIVATE human beings and if they did, it would be a THEFT of private property and involuntary servitude in violation of the above Matthews case.
You need to read the following memorandum of law on federal jurisdiction, because you aren't doing your home work:
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…urisdiction.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Like Pete Hendrickson, you are hyperfocusing on statutory language (the tree) that is deliberately confusing, and ignoring the larger forest. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING, and the most important aspect of CONTEXT is the OVERALL picture that makes EVERYTHING fit, not just the statutes.
Quote:It is, of course, true that statutory construction [or interpretation] “is a holistic endeavor” and that the meaning of a provision is “clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme … [when] only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988).[U.S. v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200, 121 S.Ct. 1433 (2001)]
Nevertheless, thank you for caring and for researching this subject and an opportunity to clarify any confusion that our readers might have about it. This subject is very important to many and can have dire consequences if understood incorrectly.
-
The best way to ensure privacy is not compromised by the id is to keep it in tin foil or a metal or aluminum case when you carry it. Another good way is to find the chip in the device, cut out a scrap of aluminum from an aluminum can, put the scrap on top of the chip, and the passport on a hard steel surface, and smack the chip with a hammer.
This same tactic also works quite well on CAC cards issued by the U.S. military.
-
Court of International Trade
Quote:COMPOSITION OF THE COURTThe President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints the nine judges who constitute the United States Court of International Trade, which is a national court established under Article III of the Constitution.
The judges, who are appointed for life, as are all judges of Article III courts, may be designated and assigned temporarily by the Chief Justice of the United States to perform judicial duties in a United States Court of Appeals or a United States District Court.
There is deception in the above paragraph that might cause one to make a fatal presumption. “The judges, who are appointed for life, as are all judges of Article III courts”, This may cause one to presume that all judges appointed for life preside over article III courts. Big mistake.
-
Neo,
We just posted an article on this subject at:
http://famguardian.o…?showtopic=6818
Still crafting a thoughtful reasoned response based on evidence.
Capital controls were first enacted under Obama. They didn't exist before.
-
You posted your question TWICE in two different forums. Please in the future don't clutter the forums with multiple posts. Posts here are permanent and we need to limit the amount that our readers have to look through to find an answer to their questions. The duplicate post was deleted.
We know what you are feeling. The approach we would take if in your situation is:
1. Try to stay on friendly terms. The more one argues the more prolonged and expensive the litigation will be. Family law lawyers do not make any money setting disputes or encouraging arbitration. They will prolong the conflict and intensify it as a way to maximize their fees until your estate and your kids college funds are totally destroyed.
2. Try to settle as much as one can out of court and without involving the lawyers.
3. Learn how to litigate using the tools at the following link. Teach yourself law so one does not need to hire an expensive lawyer:
Liberty University
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm
4. Buy a family law practice guide for the state in question, if there is one, such as the following:
http://www.ruttergro…cfm?p=200&pg=15
5. Litigate everything in the REAL superior court and not family court. Family court is a franchise court available only to public officers in the government.
6. NEVER, EVER disclose SSNs or TINs in the court record. Members may not use such numbers. See:
About SSNs/TINS on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…SSNsAndTINs.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
7. Furthermore, only “trade or business” franchise earnings of public officers in the government count as “gross income” on income statements filed with the court. The only amounts a nontaxpayer nonresident alien can indicate for statutory “income” is ZERO. See:
The “Trade or Business” Scam
http://famguardian.o…usinessScam.htm
If you want more details on your situation, see:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 6.7.8
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
We cannot answer anything about materials available from SEDM.ORG so please don't ask anyquestions about any such documents indicated above.
Finally, this is not legal advice and may not be interpreted as such, just like everything else on this site..
-
SOURCE: http://federaltaxcri…ty-to-fbar.html
_________________________
[background=rgb(187, 187, 187)]Tuesday, August 21, 2012[/background]
Credit Suisse / Wegelin Client Pleads Guilty to FBAR Violation in SDNY (8/21/12)
The USAO SDNY has announced the guilty plea of DOJ Tax has announced the sentencing of Jacques Wajsfelner, a former Credit Suisse and Wegelin client. The USAO press release is here.
The key facts are:
Taxpayer: Jacques Wajsfelner
Age: 83
Plea Date: 8/20/12
Banks: Wegelin & Co.; Credit Suisse (reported in news but not identified specifically in press release; per the press release, the account in the unnamed bank was transferred to Wegelin as the heat ramped up on UBS)
Enabler: Beda Singenberger, a Swiss financial adviser
Entities: Yes (Ample Lion, Ltd., a “sham” Hong Kong corporation)
Guilt: By Plea Agreement
Count(s) of Conviction: FBAR (1 count)
Admissions: Failed to file FBARs from 1995 through 2011; filed false income tax returns by omitting information about his Swiss accounts; “failed to make voluntary disclosures under the IRS's Voluntary Disclosure Program.”
Maximum Possible Sentence: 5 years.
Tax Loss: $419,940 (Agreed as restitution; News release says $419,000; see article below)
High Amount: $5,700,000.
FBAR Penalty: $2,840,000 +. (Amount is per article below; News Release says $2,800,000+)
Court: SD NY
Judge: Naomi Reice Buchwald (Wikipedia entry here)
I have updated the spreadsheet (but need to correct for the more specific tax loss and FBAR penalty provided by the article below)..
Article:
Patricia Hurtado and David Voreacos, Ex-Credit Suisse Client, 83, Admits Hiding $5.7 Million (Bloomberg Businessweek 8/21/12), <a href="” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.businessw…dot-7-million”>here. Excerpts are:
An 83-year-old Massachusetts man who held Swiss bank accounts at Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN) and Wegelin & Co. pleaded guilty to hiding $5.7 million from U.S. tax authorities.Jacques Wajsfelner admitted in federal court in Manhattan yesterday that he failed to file Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts Reports. He will pay civil penalties of $2.84 million and restitution of $419,940. Under advisory guidelines, he faces 30 months to 37 months in prison at sentencing on Dec. 20.* * * *Wajsfelner was born in Germany and fled the Nazis as a teenager, according to Jeffrey Denner, his attorney. He became a U.S. citizen and worked in real estate and advertising in New York and Boston, Denner said“He pleaded guilty to some very bad judgment that he exercised,” Denner said in a telephone interview. “We are hopeful at his sentencing that the very serious mitigating factors of his life will be considered by the court.”Wajsfelner’s former Swiss adviser, Beda Singenberger, was indicted last year on a charge of conspiring to help more than 60 U.S. taxpayers hide $184 million from the Internal Revenue Service in offshore accounts.Wajsfelner admitted that he held an account in his own name at Credit Suisse in 1995, and Singenberger helped him open one there in 2006 in the name of Ample Lion Ltd. At the end of 2007 the account held almost $5.7 million, court records show.After Credit Suisse began exiting its U.S. cross-border banking business in 2008, Wajsfelner transferred his assets to Wegelin, opening an undeclared account, he admitted. His account was valued at almost $5.5 million at the end of 2010, and almost $4 million at the end of 2010, court papers show.He admitted failing to file FBARs for six years, from 2006 to 2011, court records show. [Note that the USAO Press release covers more years]* * * *In Wajsfelner’s plea agreement, prosecutors said they wouldn’t charge him for lies he told IRS agents after flying to the U.S. from Germany on Sept. 15, 2011.He falsely said he didn’t know Singenberger, he didn’t have an account at Credit Suisse, he never heard of Ample Lion, and he didn’t have a foreign bank account at the time of the interview, according to the plea agreement.“There are good explanations for it all,” Denner said. “There was some level of miscommunication and misunderstanding.” -
1. Yes.
FOIA 5 USC 552
Privacy Act 5 USC 552a
2. FOIA is for information about government. Privacy Act is for information about HUMAN BEINGS maintainted by the government.
3. They only apply to the national government. Each state has their own version of the above. States and feds do not have jurisdiction over each other so feds can't mandate a privacy act of foia for states.
4. 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2) defines an “individual” as:
Quote:(2)the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;[SOURCE: http://www.law.corne…ode/text/5/552a
Those who are NOT “individuals”, which would be ALL the members on this site, are NOT allowed to have records maintained on them. What is not expressly ALLOWED is purposefully disallowed, under the rules of statutory construction.
5. You will have to look up the FOIA and or Privacy Act for your particular state. A good place to start is:
5.1 SEDM Jurisdictions Database, Litigation Tool #09.003
http://sedm.org/Liti…onsDatabase.pdf
5.2 SEDM Jurisdiction Database Online, Litigation Tool #09.004
Finally, the best tool to learn about both is the document on SEDM in the Member Subscriptions Library:
Citizens Guide to the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, Document #1.8.01
http://sedm.org/foru…ds&showfile=174
You will need to be a member subscriber to access the above.
Do not ask us questions about sedm content. We aren't responsible.
http://sedm.org/GIS/…sdictionDB.aspx
For a free resource on the FOIA/PA on this site, see:
http://famguardian.o…tizensGuide.pdf
Page 24 of the above link says the following:
Quote:“The Privacy Act only grants rights [PRIVILEGES] to U.S. citizens and to aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence. As a result, a nonresident foreign national cannot use the act's provisions. However, a nonresident foreign national may use the FOIA to request records about himself or herself.”As far as we are aware, based on the above, the “U.S. citizen” they are referring to a STATUTORY citizen, because they use the word “nonresident foreign national”, which we believe includes people born within and domiciled within a constitutional state of the Union.
-
The only documents of that kind are not on this site. But here they are. Please don't ask questions about them, because we didn't write them:
1. Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ffCitDomTax.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/TaxFormAtt.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
In the future, you should consult the Subject Index page to find the forms you are looking for:
http://famguardian.o…ubjectIndex.htm
SEDM also has a page on how to research their information and do you “due diligence” before contacting us or them. Please follow it, because that is how we found the above. Section 2 describes the process to find answers:
http://sedm.org/Memb…ngQuestions.htm
-
Don,
Fixed and reposted. Thanks.
Please keep your constructive suggestions coming.
-
Made all the changes you suggested except one: Fillable fields on the certificate of service. You can fill it in manually instead. The updated document has been reposted.
Please keep your suggestions coming.