[fg_admin]

To apply the above principles to accounts that make electronic payments instead of checks:

Make an attachment to the account agreement or add it after the fact, clarifying the nature of all transactions. That way, its in the banks records.

[fg_admin]

The above analysis also appears in:

Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024, Sections 3 through 3.4

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…aw/CorpGovt.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

[fg_admin]

Here is the case the above case cites:

Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 9 US 61 – Supreme Court 1809

http://scholar.googl…=en&as_sdt=4,60

Here is what the above case says on the same subject:

Quote:

“Aliens, or citizens of different states, are not less susceptible of these apprehensions, nor can they be supposed to be less the objects of constitutional provision, because they are allowed to sue by a corporate name. That name, indeed, cannot be an alien or a citizen; but the persons whom it represents may be the one or the other; and the controversy is, in fact and in law, between those persons suing in their corporate character, by their corporate name, for a corporate right, and the individual against whom the suit may be instituted. Substantially *88 and essentially, the parties in such a case, where the members of the corporation are aliens, or citizens of a different state from the opposite party, come within the spirit and terms of the jurisdiction conferred by the constitution on the national tribunals.”

Note that it identifies state citizens as “aliens” in relation to federal jurisdiction.

[fg_admin]

Here is the case he cites as authority for why corporations cannot deal with private human beings:

http://scholar.googl…=en&as_sdt=4,60

Here is a quote from that case:

Quote:

“The case of the Susquehanna Canal Company v. Wright, confirms the preceding views, and decides, “that the State is never presumed to have parted with one of its franchises in the absence of conclusive proof of such an intention. Hence a license, accorded by a public law to a riparian owner, to erect a dam on the Susquehanna River, and conduct the water upon his land for his own private purposes, is subject to any future provision which the State may make with regard to the navigation of the river. And if the State authorize a company to construct a canal which impairs the rights of such riparian owner, he is not entitled to recover damages from the company. In that case, Wright had erected valuable mills, under a license granted to him by the legislature; but the court say, — “He was bound to know that the State had power to revoke its license whenever the paramount interests of the public should require it. And, in this respect, a grant by a public agent of limited powers, and bound not to throw away the interests confided to it, is different from a grant by an individual who is master of the subject. To revoke the latter, after an expenditure in the prosecution of it, would be a fraud. But he who accepts a *93 license from the legislature, knowing that he is dealing with an agent bound by duty not to impair public rights, does so at his risk; and a voluntary expenditure on the foot of it, gives him no claim to compensation.”

. . .

Nor can the plaintiff claim by prescription against the public for more than the act confers on him, which is at best impunity for a nuisance. His license, or rather toleration, gives him a good title to keep up his dam and use the waters of the river, as against every one but the sovereign, and those diverting them by public authority, for public uses.

[Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Co., 55 US 80 – Supreme Court 1853]

The above is a great cite, because it applies in reverse to the government under the concept of equal protection:

“But he who accepts a an APPLICATION for a license from a PRIVATE party protected by the Constitution, knowing that he is dealing with an agent of GOD bound by duty not to impair PRIVATE rights, does so at his risk; and a voluntary expenditure on the foot of it TO PAY BENEFITS by the government, gives him no claim to compensation.””

In other words, a license can confer NO rights or standing to a government. All franchises are contracts that can acquire the force of law only by MUTUAL consent and MUTUAL OBLIGATION

and CONSIDERATION.

If the government isn't obligated to do anything, then neither is the applicant. This realization is why the state actively interferes with attempts to reserve all rights during the license application process.

[fg_admin]

SOURCE: http://gawker.com/56…sers-dumb-fucks

___________________________

Facebook CEO Admits To Calling Users ‘Dumb Fucks’

Mark Zuckerberg admits in a New Yorker profile that he mocked early Facebook users for trusting him with their personal information. A youthful indiscretion, the Facebook founder says he's much more mature now, at the ripe age of 26.

“They trust me — dumb fucks,” says Zuckerberg in one of the instant messages, first published by former Valleywag Nicholas Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider, and now confirmed by Zuckerberg himself in Jose Antonio Vargas's New Yorker piece. Zuckerberg now tells Vargas, “I think I've grown and learned a lot” since those instant messages.

And yet the old quote resounds precisely because Facebook continues to stir up privacy controversies at regular intervals. Zuckerberg justifies his privacy rollbacks by saying the social norms have changed in favor of transparency, but, as tech executive Anil Dash tells the New Yorker, that sort of change is much more appealing for a privileged, Ivy Leaguer golden boy of Silicon Valley like Zuckerberg than for his half a billion users, many of whom work for less tolerant bosses and socialize in more judgmental circles.

The dichotomy between Zuckerberg's philosophy and the lives of his users makes revelations about the Facebook CEO's own private life all the more interesting. It seems natural to figure that this forceful advocate for transparency is ready to test his own informational boundaries a bit.

And Zuckerberg does open up a little to the New Yorker, admitting that he's red-green colorblind, and explaining the Mandarin lessons he's been taking: They're for a scheduled vacation with girlfriend to Priscilla Chan to China. And Chan, it turns out, is finally moving in with Zuck.

Then there's Zuckerberg's defacto unfriending of Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter behind Zuckerberg's least favorite Facebook movie The Social Network. The CEO had listed Sorkin's TV show The West Wing as a “favorite” on his Facebook profile, only to remove it under questioning from Vargas. Now Zuckerberg's re-favorited the West Wing. Curious. Apparently living under the new social norms can lead to old school regret. Even if you're Mark Zuckerberg.

[Photo of Zuckerberg at an August 10, 2010 press conference at Facebook via Getty Images]

[fg_admin]

Requiem,

We appreciate your particiation in our ministry. However, please DO NOT post errata on materials for SEDM.ORG in these forums. Use THEIR forums instead.

http://sedm.org/forums/

Section 9.4 is where errata are posted. We ARE NOT responsible for their content. Nearly every page they produce has their website address at the bottom. Please pay closer attention in the future to what you are reading.

Thanks.

[fg_admin]

If 28 USC 535 has not been changed, then that continues to be the limit on their authority. Look at the current version for yourself. It would only have changed if the Patriot Act or Homeland Security Act changed them, but the changes would HAVE to be added to 28 USC 535. If they were not revealed in the current version, there was no change and their jurisdiction continues to be government employees only. The “Notes” section shows the history of changes. See for yourself and report your research back to us. We're not your free research assistant:

http://www.law.corne…ode/text/28/535

All franchisees are the equivalent of government “employees” (public officers), and that is why they can investigate most americans, who are franchisees under the I.R.C. and Social Security Act by virtue of applying for and using SSNs and TINs. See:

Government Instituted Slavery using Franchises, Form #05.030

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/Franchises.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

You should investigate this sort of thing yourself and debate the history revealed in the statutes in your LEAD post, not compel us to find the history for you. The following even shows you how to effectively research such things in the following document on this website:

Legal Research Techniques, Form #12.013

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Libe…galResearch.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

[fg_admin]

The constitution is for those who want privileges. The AOC is for those who want rights. We aren't aware of any conflicts. The original continental congress became the U.S. senate. The House of representatives was added by the constitution. The original President under the AOC became the President under the Constitution. The AOC governs states. The constitution also governs people on federal territory ONLY. They supplement each other.

Much more on this subject can be found at:

http://edrivera.com

This is not our specialty and we don't want to do your homework for you.

[fg_admin]

Its a supplement, not a replacement, to the constitution as far as we understand it. We are not aware of any court ruling or statute that repeals or even CAN repeal the Articles. If you find one please let us know. Other relevant facts:

1. The Constitution itself says its purpose is to create “a more perfect union”, not a SUBSTITUTE or REPLACEMENT union.

2. To this day, Findlaw still lists the Articles of Confederation as Organic law.

3. Even after the Constitution was ratified and the very first Congress began its session, the VERY first printing of the Statutes at Large BEGAN with the printing of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution TOGETHER. It would be pointless to print them at that point in 1789 if they had been repealed.

[fg_admin]

They identify themselves as “perpetual”. They have NOT been repealed. One can still be a “free inhabitant” under them and not a U.S. citizen. Such a party would be a statutory alien in relation to the national government.

See the preamble:

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/documents/aofc.html#article%20ix

[fg_admin]

Additional information:

1. Who can be detained for terrorism:
http://www.asil.org/insights091020.cfm

2. Here is the bill (also attached)
http://www.asil.org/insights091020.cfm

3. The bill amends 8 U.S.C. 1481:
http://www.law.corne…ode/text/8/1481

4. The person who LOSES their citizenship is described as follows in 8 USC 1481(a):

 

8 U.S.C. 1481

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

Some observations:

1. I don’t claim to be a “national of the United States”, but rather a “national of the United States OF AMERICA” and a STATUTORY “non-citizen national”.

2. You can LOSE “national of the United States” status WITHOUT losing constitutional citizenship.

3. The statute qualifies the expatriation with the phrase “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality”. No one but you can define your intention and therefore consent FOR you.

4. On this subject, the U.S. Supreme Court has said:

 

 

Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior. The duties of citizenship are numerous, and the discharge of many of these obligations is essential to the security and wellbeing of the Nation. The citizen who fails to pay his taxes or to abide by the laws safeguarding the integrity of elections deals a dangerous blow to his country. But could a citizen be deprived of his nationality for evading these basic responsibilities of citizenship? In time of war, the citizen’s duties include not only the military defense of the Nation, but also full participation in the manifold activities of the civilian ranks. Failure to perform any of these obligations may cause the Nation serious injury, and, in appropriate circumstances, the punishing power is available to deal with derelictions of duty. But citizenship is not lost every time a duty of citizenship is shirked. And the deprivation of citizenship [356 U.S. 93] is not a weapon that the Government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen’s conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be. As long as a person does not voluntarily renounce or abandon his citizenship, and this petitioner has done neither, I believe his fundamental right of citizenship is secure. On this ground alone, the judgment in this case should be reversed.

[. . .]

This punishment is offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies.{35} It is no answer to suggest that all the disastrous consequences of this fate may not be brought to bear on a stateless person. The threat makes the punishment obnoxious.{36}

The civilized nations of the world are in virtual unanimity that statelessness is not to be imposed as punishment for crime. It is true that several countries prescribe expatriation in the event that their nationals engage in conduct in derogation of native allegiance.{37} Even statutes of this sort are generally applicable primarily [356 U.S. 103] to naturalized citizens. But use of denationalization as punishment for crime is an entirely different matter. The United Nations’ survey of the nationality laws of 84 nations of the world reveals that only two countries, the Philippines and Turkey, impose denationalization as a penalty for desertion.{38} In this country, the Eighth Amendment forbids this to be done.

In concluding, as we do, that the Eighth Amendment forbids Congress to punish by taking away citizenship, we are mindful of the gravity of the issue inevitably raised whenever the constitutionality of an Act of the National Legislature is challenged. No member of the Court believes that, in this case the statute before us can be construed to avoid the issue of constitutionality. That issue confronts us, and the task of resolving it is inescapably ours. This task requires the exercise of judgment, not the reliance upon personal preferences. Courts must not consider the wisdom of statutes, but neither can they sanction as being merely unwise that which the Constitution forbids.

We are oath-bound to defend the Constitution. This obligation requires that congressional enactments be judged by the standards of the Constitution. The Judiciary has the duty of implementing the constitutional safeguards that protect individual rights. When the Government acts to take away the fundamental right of citizenship, the safeguards of the Constitution should be examined with special diligence.
[Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)]

Therefore, those who are compliant members to this site are not the subject of the bill. The “national of the United States” can only refer to the STATUTORY “united States” because federal civil law, which is what this bill is, does NOT apply inside the borders of a state. For more details on what the “national of the United States**” is that they are referring to, see:

Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdf

[fg_admin]

If you want to know who Obama really is go see the movie “2016” coming out

this summer.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Z6QOscKvUjU?version=3

[fg_admin]

ANSWER 1:

Magistrates are ALWAYS inferior and always operate in an administrative capacity because:

1. They are not appointed for life.

2. There is no constitutional prohibition against reduction in their pay like regular judges.

At the federal level, 28 USC 636 says that Magistrates ONLY preside by MUTUAL consent of the parties, and the reason is because they essentially are administrators and/or binding arbitrators, not real judges.

ANSWER 2:

1. Local rules ADD to but to not SUPERSEDE the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. The U.S. Supreme Court refers to all local and federal rules as “prophylactic”, meaning that they bind judges but do NOT adversely impact or impair PRIVATE rights or YOUR rights. Only civil legislation from the place of one's domicile can impair one's rights. Anyone who quotes civil law from OUTSIDE your domicile is kidnapping your identity and violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ).

3. What you are suggesting is a declaratory judgment to resolve a dispute between you and your PRIVATE business associates. Both state and federal courts will try to invoke the exceptions to the declaratory judgments act found in 28 USC 2201(a) in the case of taxes as an excuse for NOT ruling on such a matter. However, they are NOT allowed to invoke that act in the case of a NONTAXPAYER, and if they do, they are committing a conspiracy to impair private rights as explained in:

Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 6.10

http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf

4. Those who quote or use federal statutory PRIVILEGES called “statutes” automatically surrender their constitutional rights and indirectly admit they are domiciliaries within the federal zone who have no rights. See:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/FedJurisdiction/FedJuris.htm

The CONSTITUTION is the ONLY remedy, and it is SELF EXECUTING, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which means you DON'T need a STINKING STATUTE to enforce it.

Quote:

The design of the Fourteenth Amendment has proved significant also in maintaining the traditional separation of powers 524*524 between Congress and the Judiciary. The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action, and this Court has had primary authority to interpret those prohibitions. The Bingham draft, some thought, departed from that tradition by vesting in Congress primary power to interpret and elaborate on the meaning of the new Amendment through legislation. Under it, “Congress, and not the courts, was to judge whether or not any of the privileges or immunities were not secured to citizens in the several States.” Flack, supra, at 64. While this separation-of-powers aspect did not occasion the widespread resistance which was caused by the proposal's threat to the federal balance, it nonetheless attracted the attention of various Members. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1064 (statement of Rep. Hale) (noting that Bill of Rights, unlike the Bingham proposal, “provide safeguards to be enforced by the courts, and not to be exercised by the Legislature”); id., at App. 133 (statement of Rep. Rogers) (prior to Bingham proposal it “was left entirely for the courts . . . to enforce the privileges and immunities of the citizens”). As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 325 (discussing Fifteenth Amendment). The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary.

[City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]

[fg_admin]

SOURCE: http://news.cnet.com…col;editorPicks

This is HUGE. Notice the language:

Quote:

renounce the incredible gift of citizenship we gave to this man

They are describing a FRANCHISE, and that franchise is established by an “incredible gift”, or “loan” as the case may be. This falacious reasoning, because “nationality” is conveyed by the law of nations and NOT statutory privileges thereby. The REAL franchise is STATUTORY citizenship, and Saverin could have abandoned THAT PRIVILEGE WITHOUT expatriating as he had done. Neither he nor his attorney obviously understand citizenship as most of the users on this website do. If you would like to learn more about the differences between STATUTORY citizenship and CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship, see:

Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Costitutional but not Statutory Citizen

DIRECT LINK: http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf

If he had read the above, there is no way that ANYONE could legitimately criticize or outlaw Saverin's First Amendment protected act of DIS association.

_______________

Facebook's Saverin: I'm a 'global citizen,' not a tax dodger

Company co-founder who, it was recently revealed, renounced his U.S. citizenship says the decision had nothing to do with the blockbuster IPO and taxes.

by Steven Musil

May 16, 2012 4:25 PM PDT

Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who is simultaneously becoming one of the richer and more reviled people around, wants to set the record straight.

Saverin, who helped Mark Zuckerberg launch Facebook in 2004, will become an instant billionaire when the social-networking giant goes public in its massive IPO later this week. But Uncle Sam's tax bite is expected to be tempered by the fact that Saverin, a Brazilian who immigrated to the U.S. as a boy to avoid kidnapping plots, has renounced his U.S. citizenship.

The recent revelation has raised the consternation of many, including my ZDNet colleague David Gewirtz, who accuse Saverin of reaping the benefits of U.S. citizenship and then skipping out when it was his turn to give back:

Quote:

What he's done is played a system and gained tremendously for it. A case could be made that that's fair. One of the first things they teach you in B-school is to pay the least amount of taxes you can within the bounds of the law, and even the IRS accepts this as a reasonable strategy.

But going so far as to renounce the incredible gift of citizenship we gave to this man, and by doing so, saved him from kidnap gangs in his native country — that's below reprehensible.

However, Saverin, who now makes his home in Singapore, which has no capital gains tax, says that his motivation is misunderstood and that tax avoidance had nothing to do with his decision.

“This had nothing to do with taxes,” he told The New York Times in an interview published today. “I was born in Brazil, I was an American citizen for about 10 years. I thought of myself as a global citizen.”

He professes that he is no tax expert but adroitly points out that he “complied with all the known laws,” including the 15 percent U.S. exit tax, which ensures that the wealthy don't avoid paying something before their departure.

Saverin, who holds a degree in economics from Harvard, certainly knows he could have avoided capital gains taxes by borrowing against his shares instead of selling them. However, tax experts suspect his true motivation was to avoid estate taxes, which could take 35 percent or more of his fortune when he dies.

Before news of his citizenship status was revealed, Saverin was known more for living the lifestyle of the rich and famous in Singapore.

“It's a misperception, especially the playboy,” he told the Times. “I do have a Bentley. I do go out. I'd rather not go into personal details.”

When Facebook goes public on Friday, Saverin's stake is expected to be worth more than $3 billion.

[fg_admin]

This is a fascinating story of just how stupid our elected representatives really are. As if a “renunciation” is a taxable event under any clause or interpretation of the constitution. I think this is right up there with Pelosi saying “we have to pass it to find out what's in it” in response to a question about the contents of the Obama care bill. What is even more fascinating to me is how the general public can hear such moronic utterances from so called leaders, and do nothing to recall them. Public education has certainly done its job.

http://abcnews.go.co…ins-tax-scheme/

________________

May 17, 2012 7:01am

Senators to Unveil the ‘Ex-Patriot Act’ to Respond to Facebook’s Saverin’s Tax ‘Scheme’

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has a status update for Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin: Stop attempting to dodge your taxes by renouncing your U.S. citizenship or never come to back to the U.S. again.

In September 2011, Saverin relinquished his U.S. citizenship before the company announced its planned initial public offering of stock, which will debut this week. The move was likely a financial one, as he owns an estimated 4 percent of Facebook and stands to make $4 billion when the company goes public. Saverin would reap the benefit of tax savings by becoming a permanent resident of Singapore, which levies no capital gains taxes.

At a news conference this morning, Sens. Schumer and Bob Casey, D-Pa., will unveil the “Ex-PATRIOT” – “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy” – Act to respond directly to Saverin’s move, which they dub a “scheme” that would “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.”

The senators will call Saverin’s move an “outrage” and will outline their plan to re-impose taxes on expatriates like Saverin even after they flee the United States and take up residence in a foreign country. Their proposal would also impose a mandatory 30 percent tax on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship.

The plan would bar individuals like Saverin from ever reentering the United States again.

“Eduardo recently found it more practical to become a resident of Singapore since he plans to live there for an indefinite period of time,” Tom Goodman, Saverin’s spokesman, told Bloomberg News in an email.

Last year 1,700 people renounced their U.S. citizenship.