fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
1983 actions are only for STATE OFFICERS against private parties domiciled in the constitutional and not statutory state. The action is against a federal officer, because they are acting as FEDERAL withholding agents. That is covered in:
http://sedm.org/foru…83&fromsearch=1
You started this thread off by asking about “Private employers”. Corporations are NOT private, but INSTRUMENTS of the authority granting the charter of the corporation. If they are a state corporation, they are officers of the state and therefore would also come under 1983.
The Constitution is the only thing needed to sue at the federal level, because the U.S. Supreme Court said it is “self executing”, meaning it needs NO implementing statute. Civil statutes are only for those domiciled on federal territory. The company falls in that category if they are acting as a withholding agent but not otherwise.
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, “providesafeguards 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)]
-
The violations that are occurring are under state and not federal law. They include:
1. Grand theft for all amounts withheld.
2. Eminent domain in violation of the state constitution. They are acting as a federal officer as a withholding agent and wrongfully converting PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property and offices.
3. Fraud. You notified them that the false information returns are false, and they couldn't and didn't produce evidence of the contrary within the time limit you gave them and therefore agree pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 8(b)(6).
4. Tampering with a witness. All withholding documents are signed under penalty of perjury and therefore constitute testimony of a witness.
5. Perjury and subornation of perjury, because all the false information return reports are knowing false and fraudulent and they agree they are fraudulent by their failure to deny.
6. Obstruction of justice, because you described what they did as a crime and interfered with reporting and preventing it.
Violations under federal law:
1. Filing false information returns, 26 USC 7206 and 7207 as a withholding agent.
2. Eminent domain in violation of the fifteh amendment, because they are acting as a federal withholding agent and therefore federal public officer and must respect the limitations of the constitution upon their behavior.
3. Violation of the Fourth Amendment, because they are violating your privacy by reporting PRIVATE and not PUBLIC earnings.
4. Impersonating a public officer, 18 USC 912, because they are acting as a withholding agent without a delegation order and the proper credentials AND they are FORCING you against your will to accept the duties that only a public officer/”taxpayer” can lawfully exercise.
5. Misprision of felony, 18 U.S.C. 1, because you reported a crime and tried to prevent it and they refused to help prevent it.
6. Accessory after the fact, 18 USC 2, because you reported the crimes above and they not only prevented the report and didn't act on it, but protected it, and therefore became a party to it.
7. Election fraud, 18 U.S.C. 210, because they are wrongfully using information returns to “elect” you into a public office called “taxpayer”. 18 USC 1512.
8. Bribery, because the unlawfuly withholdings are being used to bribe they to treat you as a public officer and to receive the “benefits” of the office. 18 USC 210.
-
Folks:
I think you can put these two stories together.
1. U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms [Forbes Magazine: http://www.forbes.co…ers-up-in-arms/
2. Department of Homeland Security Buying 450 Million New Bullets
Quote:Department of Homeland Security Buying 450 Million New Bullets –DHS also has open bid to seek up to 175 million rounds of .223 caliber ammo 28 Mar 2012 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office is getting an “indefinite delivery” of an “indefinite quantity” of .40 caliber ammunition from defense contractor ATK. U.S. agents will receive a maximum of 450 million rounds over five years, according to a press release on the deal. The high performance HST bullets are designed for law enforcement and ATK says they offer “optimum penetration for terminal performance.” [The Department's mission is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards. Our efforts are supported by an ever-expanding set of partners. Every day, the more than 240,000 men and women of the Department contribute their skills and experiences to this important mission. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear: a safer, more secure America.]3. Adult Population of the United States: 235 Million [http://www.census.go…es/12s0007.pdf]
4. IS IT COINCIDENCE THAT THE RATIO OF BULLETS PER AMERICAN IS 2:1????
Now what is the EDICT of Homeland Security? Insure SAFETY for the Homeland. Hint: We have an Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force to protect us. Now OBVIOUSLY there are not 450 million terrorists or even a 1/10th of 1% of that number….so WHAT on earth could they use these bullets for OVER HERE in the homeland …UNLESS it is for using upon people IN THE HOMELAND??
You’ve had an ECONOMY ruined by government spending, they’ve given you a FIAT currency [aka one with no backing], they stole your gold in the 1930’s, no jobs, inflation is running 27%–due to their actions—and now they’re planning for the EVENTUAL result….which is what they fear….aka the patriot will arise and say “enough is enough”…we can govern ourselves just as we did post July 4th 1776. They know this is coming, so they are planning for war. Now that should tell you something about all the LIES they are PRESENTLY telling you. They lie….hope you don’t plan….while they secretly plan.
-
See also:
This is a list of citing cases.
-
Details on the above:
-
Here is the video that the above video was based on:
-
EDITORIAL: This guy is just full of himself. An arrogant ass.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Start Original Message
Sent: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:39:59 -0500
From: John Galt
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: Errata in document “Withdrawal of Consent”
*I agree with nothing you or your organization does, writes, or promotes. It is dangerous to lack the “knowledge” of the facts at hand which obviously you and all your followers do. Please DO NOT presume to know me
or anything about me.
Call into my show tonight and I will be happy to debate you on any and every “issue” you “believe” important. But I warn you, you really do know nothing about the “issues” at hand.
8-10PM Central Time – http://www.libertyandfreedomradio.net/
K
OUR RESPONSE TO THEIR RESPONSE:
We only debate in writing on the public record with printed evidence, just as all lawyers must do when they litigate. Any fool can shoot off his presumptuous mouth with opinions.
BUT..as they say in the U.S. military: Opinions [and presumptions] are like assholes: everyone has one and they all stink, including ours. Only FACTS in writing that are admissible as evidence in the court record matter.
Please go back to your cage on the federal plantation in which the bars are your own ignorance and the lock is your own pride and presumptions.
God bless
-
Here is the response to the above:
Quote:Dear sir,You are not on any lists. People who are prideful, who don't listen to rebuke, and who refuse to defend their position with FACTS rather than PRESUMPTIONS are the real dangerous ones.
We are open to rebuke if you will just present evidence proving we are wrong that is admissible as evidence in court, just as we have done in the documents we pointed you to.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6) a failure to deny WITH EVIDENCE, constitutes an admission.
Thank you for agreeing with us.
This is our last communication with you unless and until you present evidence proving that OUR rebuttal of your information is false.
God bless you.
-
Here is the response to the correction of his materials sent to him as described above:
__________________________
Dear sir
You are wrong and dangerous to those who listen to you. Please take me off
all your infected patriot lists forever and DO NOT EVER contact me again.
Kurtis Richard – House of Kallenbach
*
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:38 AM, ______________ wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> This correspondence relates to the following document produced by Kurt
> Kallenbach:
>
> Withdrawal of Consent
> LINK:
> http://famguardian.o…alOfConsent.pdf
>
> The above document contains severe errors in the context of citizenship.
> It implies that the Fourteenth Amendment grants congress legislative
> jurisdiction over state citizens, which is FALSE. This disinformation is
> discrediting and undermining the freedom movement and accomplishing the
> opposite purpose to what the author appears to intend.
>
> The above link has a cover page added which points to information needed
> to rebut the inaccurate information. Those resources are:
>
> 1. Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom, Form
> #08.015
> DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…mendNotProb.pdf
> FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
>
> 2. Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but
> not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
> DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…hyANational.pdf
> FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
>
> 3. Family Guardian Forums, Section 6.1.4: Citizenship Questions,
> Confusion, and Disinformation
> http://famguardian.org/forums/
>
> 4. Taxation Section 7: Citizenship
> http://famguardian.o…Taxes/taxes.htm
>
> If you are the author of this document we beg you to remove the inaccurate
> information in order to protect the credibility and successfulness of the
> freedom community. If you update it to remove the inaccurate information,
> please forward the fixed version to us.
>
> If you are someone who is disseminating this document, please consider at
> least posting the version at the link above with the warning to ensure that
> people are not MISinformed about citizenship, which is perhaps the MOST
> important subject to be informed about.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Contributor to the above website
-
We forwarded the above to SEDM and they were so impressed with it, that they added it to:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 14
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…thToFreedom.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
🙂 🙂
-
Part 3
-
Part 2
-
Neo,
Thanks for the feedback.
We agree with you on the fourteenth amendment.
Just did a search and its on the doc and here are some of the FLAWED and FALSE references to Fourteenth Amendment:
1. p. 85, The United States is Still a British Colony
2. p. 162: The Act of Congress to Re-Define “State” in America.
3. p. 172: Are YOU a Union state Citizen or Federal U.S. “citizen”?
4. p. 203: The Unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment
Perhaps we should put a cover page with a warning about the flawed views on citizenship in this document. It's hard to filter the work of so many to keep our readers from going down wrong roads such as the Fourteenth Amendment.
The document has been modified to add a warning cover page about the FALSE information and which points to a rebuttal of the false information. The document is now password locked so the warning cannot be removed. This will prevent this website from ever being accused of spreading knowingly false information. Here is the link to the version with the warning cover page:
Withdrawal of Consent
http://famguardian.o…alOfConsent.pdf
We have also sent an email to the author and the website he speaks at warning them about the inaccurate information and directing them to the rebuttal to the inaccurate information and encouraging them to correct their document and resend it, or to at least use the above version with the cover page warning readers about the inaccurate information.
Sad
-
EDITORIAL ON THE ABOVE:
They fornicated and didn't even get “respected” in the morning, did they? At least the local prostitute would have given each and every one a good “job” instead of 'blowing” smoke up their butts.'
-
Here a the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition of the “straw man”:
Quote:The statute (§ 303) makes “any person” who violates § 301(a) guilty of a “misdemeanor.” It specifically defines “person” to include “corporation.” § 201(e). But the only way in which a corporation can act is through the individuals who act on its behalf. New York Central & H. R Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 481. And the historic conception of a “misdemeanor” makes all those responsible for it equally guilty, United States v. Mills, 7 Pet. 138, 32 U. S. 141, a doctrine given general application in § 332 of the Penal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 550. If, then, Dotterweich is not subject to the Act, it must be solely on the ground that individuals are immune when the “person” who violates § 301(a) is a corporation, although, from the point of view of action, the individuals are the corporation. As a matter of legal development, it has taken time to establish criminal liability also for a corporation, and not merely for its agents. See New York Central & H. R. Co. v. United States, supra. The history of federal food and drug legislation is a good illustration of the elaborate phrasing that was in earlier days deemed necessary to fasten criminal liability on corporations.[United States v. Dotterweich – 320 U.S. 277 (1943);
SOURCE: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/320/277/case.html]