fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
A letter from Dad, who is still incarcerated in Big Spring, TX:
=====================================================
Lindsey Springer here and I am willing to attempt to explain what is partially wrong with our Judicial system. There are many things wrong with it. It of course starts at the top. The Supreme Court is the top of the system we see. This Court has become an exclusive club for men and women who are careful to make certain if called to account will be able to justify their decisions.
The presumption is that what little problems they care to hear will generally give some support to both sides of a dispute what has reached their desks. There are several types of opinions issued such as a MAJORITY opinion which means at least 5 Justices of 9 possible votes, voted in favor of certain written formulated very carefully words. Usually, the Justices that did not agree with the Majority write a DISSENTING opinion explaining their differences with the majority and what they wish you to think are the reasons they could not agree with the MAJORITY view.
In very rare instances, the OPINION OF THE COURT can actually be 4 justices with 4 DISSENTING votes, making the opinion which favors the lower court decision the holding of the court. This happens when only 8 of 9 justices vote and are evenly divided. Because the Court failed to overturn by a “MAJORITY” the OPINION affirms the lower Court rulings. In this particular instance, the Supreme Cuort call their work an OPINION of the Court with no other descriptive terms.
Thus far I have discussed 3 types of opinions. We have the MAJORITY opinion, a DISSENTING opinion, and just an OPINION.
Then there is a CONCURRING opinion. This is where one of the Justices voting in the MAJORITY opinion have decided to agree with the MAJORITY opinion but have decided to write separately in effort to explain what the central reason for their particular vote was. In otherwords the distinction that made them go one way or another and thus the reason they write separately. Usually there is something in the MAJORITY opinion or DISSENTING opinion that the CONCURRING Justice points out that gives clarity as to why they voted the way they did nand if something in the case was presented differently they would have voted differently.
In some instances a CONCURRING opinion will actually say he agrees with the MAJORITY outcome but for a different reason not fully addressed in the MAJORITY opinion. In some rare instances a DISSENTING Justice may write a DISSENTING opinion separate from the minorities DISSENTING opinion because that particular Justice DISSENTS for a different reason than the other DISSENT and felt so strong about his DISSENT from the DISSENT that he chose to write separately DISSENTING.
This then brings us to the dragon in the room. It is a 9 headed type of beast. It is called a PLURALITY opinion. It is the single most dangerous of all opinions that any of the 9 Justices can take against the rule of law. A PLURALITY opinion is an opinion by the Supreme Court that has no majority but is the opinion of the Court that received more votes than any other written words. I will also inject the phrase “quorum” which under the Supreme Court Rules means when 6 of the 9 Justices are present to hear a case or deside a case a “quorum” is present which is required.
Since a 4 to 4 even split has no MAJORITY to label such opinion, and is not a PLURALITY opinion, a 4 to 4 split is when for instance the President has nominated a Justice who is confirmed and where she must recuse because she was the lawyer for the Government that brought the case to the Judicial system in the first place (which happened many times with Justice Kagan as she was the top litigator for the Department of Justice named Solicitor General). Other examples is when the very rare situation of death or illness prevents one of the 9 Justices from being present.
I have actually read in decisions another term used where the opinion has four parts and a Justice will CONCUR with lets say Parts 1 and 2, but not Parts 3 and 4, but agrees with the ultimate outcome of the Court, including even where this Justice is the deciding vote that creates the MAJORITY. When litigants attempt to use this type of opinion of the Supreme Court and its stated outcome they are prevented if they rely upon any words form Part 3 or 4 because those parts did not have a majority.
The greates example of this is in Booker v. U.S., 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.CT. 738, 160 L.Ed 2d 621(2005) where 5 Justices including Justice Ginsdberg voted that Judge Found Facts used to establish a reason for a certain sentence of imprisonment (an injury in Bond v. U.S. as I will soon point out) that were not presented or found by the Jury violated the Sixth Amendment Right of Booker seen as secured by the Sixth Amendment. This is known as Booker Part 1.
What creates Booker Part 2 is where Justice Ginsberg did not agree with Part 2 of the MAJORITY OPINION so her vote shifted the 5 to 4 in favor of the Sixth Amendment violation to 4 to 5 in favor of the remedy suggested by the DISSENT in Booker Part 1. I have heard one Federal Judge refer to this action by Justice Ginsberg as the “flip flop” of Justice Ginsberg.
Then there is the UNANIMOUS opinion which is rare but great to see as these opinions are never reversed by another UNANIMOUS opinion. The best way of explaining what a UNANIMOUS opinion is where all 9 Justices agree. Something that usually is an earth shaking decision because if they were so aligned together why did they choose to hear the case in the first place. Wouldn’t their allignment together be so clear from previous decisions as to render their decision to consider the case a waste of valuable judicial resources?
Recently, one such great example of an UNANIMOUS decision is in the world of Bond v. U.S., 564 U.S. ___, (June 16, 2011) where the Supreme Court held “now defined and applied” that all prisoners or deprived individuals from their precious liberty have standing to challenge a United States law that transgressed the Tenth Amendment by invading upon the area of criminal law reserved by the States as reflected in the very language of the Tenth Amendment.
Of Course, in Booker almost all the convictions at the Federal Level were based upon violations of the Sixth Amendment and Justice Ginsberg’s flip flop from Part 1 to Part 2, prevented much relief to prisoners. In Bond, though she, like the rest of the Court agree a Federal prisoner has a right to object that the United States law violates the Tenth Amendment, Justice Ginsberg wrote a CONCURRING opinon explaining that any law that violates the Tenth Amendment is “no law at all.”
She pointed out the Supreme Court had previously held and maintains currently that if a person is in prison based upon such law the incarceration is an injury that is illegal and void and the prison must be set free. Whether the State prohibits the exact same conduct does not determine whether the Federal law violates the Tenth Amendment.
You can imagine then the next issue in discering these different types of opinions is how the wods affect decisions of lower courts pending and whether or to what extent how those differing opinions apply “retroactively.” Just because the Supreme Court fails to state its opinion in any given case is retroactive does not mean it does not apply retroactively. There is a practical Supreme Court test that determines whether a certain opinion applies retroactively. In order to understand this issue you must be able to understand the “holding” in a certain opinion distringuished from “dictum.”
The term “dictum” means “a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative because of the dignity of the person making it.” The term “holding” means “a court determination of a matter of law privotal to its decision.” So, to determine what the “holding” is as compared to the “dictum” when faced with MAJORITY, DISSENT, CONCURRING, OPINION and PLURALITY, the most intelligent become very confused.
Then there is the principal of law or “notion” that “ignorance of the law is no excuse for a violation of the law so long as the law is definite and knowable, everyone is presumed to know the law.” Stop and ask yourself why anyone would ever need to have a Constitutional Right to an attorney or Counsel if everyone presumed to know every law and everything?
I realize there are literally over 5000 Federal Criminal Laws that are intended by Congress to apply to Citizens of the 50 States while maybe less than 2000 crimes against the laws of the State you live in are present for possible violation. I am sure these numbers vary. How many of you can name a mere 20 Federal Crimes or 20 State Crimes you have knowledge of?
So, the Supreme Court creates this “ignorance of the law” standard well knowing the laws are not definite and not knowable. If laws were so knowable and definite then WHY ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF OPINIONS LIKE MAJORITY, DISSENT, CONCURRING (which agrees with the Majority but for possibly a different reason) and what or whoever authorized PLURALITY opinions?
These opinions are showing us all laws are not definite and certain not then knowable. Not only is ignorance of the law held as no excuse for violating the law, but this same ignorance standard applies to Court opinions both the Executive enforces and the Court system extends. So, you the people are to know everything even when the Court did not know it. This is the pivotal point to the United States’ crisis. It also affects Obama Care’s criminal penalty imposed or enforced by the Secretary of the Treasury and the entire tax collection system.
The Unanimous Supreme Court Bond “holding” is that all persons imprisoned under Federal Statute now have a right to challenge their “injury” of incarceration by claiming the Federal Law violates the Tenth Amendment. The decision on Obama Care will have a dramatic impact on many aspects of our lives. The question is whether the United States can make it a crime to refuse to sign or enter a contract with a health care insurance provider. The United States could have sent a Federal Statute to the Legislature of every State to have passed as State Law by the threat if that State did not their Federal bribery money would be reduced as they have done so many times before.
What (?) you say. When the Supreme Court renders its opinion that making it a Federal Crime to refuse to pay a fine to the IRS (Secretary of the Treasury) for not entering into a Health Insurance Contract VOLUNTARILY violates the Tenth Amendment power reserved by and for the 50 Tenth Amendment Union States, all the violations of the United States regarding the Tenth Amendment will be exposed.
You will also be able to see how decisions in many lower Courts acted to violate State Citizens Tenth Amendment Rights by taking one sentence in a 60 year old Supreme Court decision way out of context that was “dictum” and not even, as the Supreme Court in Bond recently said, incorrectly applied. So, it was not a holding of a Supreme Court case that prevented the imprisoned from challenging Federal Law for violating the Tenth Amendment, but a single sentence, not connected to the holding of a case, that for decades the lower Courts refused to consider Constitutional violations.
What then does anything mean when that happens? Because the Bond decision was 9 to 0 with a strong concurrense, no matte what the final vote is on Obama Care, the United States will never be able to enforce the criminal provision related to insurance contracting upon Citizens of the 50 States. The interesting thing is the notion of ignorance of teh law is out the window and bribing the State Legislatures appears to have fell out with it. States should have been doing this from the start and we would not have had such a shock by the 9 to 0 decision.
It is difficult how Congressional representation can say it is in the best interest of his State to give the United States more than what they have a righ to. We have been doing that with Constitutional power for a long time. Borrowing may be a right the United States has but convincing people to loan remains voluntary, not mandatory, and the sticking point. Can you imagine a law requiring you to loan the U.S. your money or face prision time?
Some of you already do by withholding taken from your wages to be offset by what you owe on April 15 of the next year. It is one thing to send someone to D.C. because of their special skill in an are needed addressed, but it is another when the States choose the person who will best vote to raise the United States debt, increase the size of Government, or otherwise support acts that violate or need to step over the State’s reserved power at the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is not to create a war over power between the United States Government (national government) and the 50 Tenth Amendment recognized Union States.
There is a reason why the Supreme Court’s Bond decision was 9 to 0 and it is time you understand it. You will never be able to exercise your rights if you do not “know” them or how the Supreme Court interprets them. The Bond decision says to me that the Supreme Court concluded the only hope we have left is in the people because neither Congress or the President are able to agree or act in accord with the Tenth Amendment.
As long as we have 9 to 0 on the Tenth Amendment we can extend everything from there and as long as we do not go down the roads that lead to 5 to 4, MAJORITY, CONCURRING, OPINIONS (4 to 4) DISSENTING OR THE DREADED PLURALITY (Agreeding with Part 1 but not Part 2) opinions, on something so fundamental as the distinction between something that crosses State line with something that never crossed State lines and is within the reserved Power of the States to prohibit and police, we should be able to at least place the emphasis upon certain rights in the proper jurisdictions.
Bond, a fitting name as Treasury Bonds are being traded like bubble gum cards currently, should lead all States back to the drawing board with wisdom of what does not work firmly in place. Remember, Obama Care hinges upon (in theory) the Government being able to force you to buy health insurance or face penalties that lead to prison. There is no way to impose an interstate jurisdictional element in such a crime because it is a crime for failing to do something and thus far no one has proffered a theory how someone failed to do something that was “in interstate commerce” of “affecting commerce” to which the criminal statute would need assert so a Jury could find it.
I realize Tax Cases have many similarities to Obama Care (failure to file Form 1040) but in that instance the theory is you earned gross income and for now “interstate commerce” has not entered into that debate. After the Supreme Court addresses the 6th and 11th Circuit’s division over Obama Care, we will definitely revisit that theory as Bond will expand to explain what or how Congressional Power and State Power runs “concurrently” when other than the 18th Amendment and prohibition no other power is shared concurrently or jointly in the world of commerce.
Drugs may also be another victim of Obama Care since the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 does not contain any interstate element that would distinguish a State Crime from a Federal Crime involving controlled substances. As Bond said, when this happens, the Federal Law is Unconstitutional and those incarcerated are being held illegally and must be released as their incarceration violates the Tenth Amendment.
God bless you, Lindsey Springer 8.21.11
=====================================================
Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.
PayPal:
gnutella@mindspring.com or lindsey@mindspring.com.
Mailing address for donations or other inquiries:
Landon Springer (I can’t cash checks made out to Lindsey)
5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135
Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):
Lindsey Springer, 02580-063
FCI Big Spring
1900 Simler Ave
Big Spring, TX 79720
Thanks,
Landon Springer
-
“Did you notice WHO Obama threatened when he wasn’t getting his way on raising the debt ceiling?
From now thru November 2012 this should be required weekly, or at least monthly, reading – BY ALL WHO VOTE!!!
“Did you notice WHO Obama threatened when he wasn’t getting his way on raising the debt ceiling?
He threatened to not pay: Social Security Retirees, Military Retirees, Social Security disability and Federal Retirees.
BUT:
He did not threaten to stop payments & benefits to illegal aliens.
He did not threaten to not pay foreign aid.
He did not threatened to take frivolous benefits such as Internet access away from violent inmates.
He did not offer to fire some of the thousands of unnecessary federal employees that he hired.
He did not offer to cut down on his or his wife’s frivolous gallivanting around.
He did not threaten to not pay the senators and representatives or any of their staff.
He did not threaten to take benefits away from welfare recipients.
He did not threaten the food stamp programs.
He did not threaten to cut back on anything that involves his base voters.
The list could go on and on.
He is in full political re-election mode!
Why are we allowing this person to destroy our country with his selfishness and his lies? His “change” is killing our country. He needs to be stopped and only our votes can stop him.
Do not forget about his tactics when it’s election time. Vote Obama out of the Presidency in 2012″.
2012 – THE END OF AN ERROR or is that political TERROR.
-
*Judge Conner in the Middle District of Penna recently held Obamacare
unconstitutional. That decision is posted here:
-
EDTORIAL: An email from Attorney Larry Becraft about 911. We didn’t write this.
If you want to watch a video about Bernays, see:
Liberty University, Section 2.3: The Century of Self
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm
___________________
*This morning, I watched part of the 9-11 ceremonies in NYC. Gov Cuomo’s statement essentially change the objectives of govt from protecting life, liberty and property, to, in his words, “the freedom from want,
the freedom from fear.” Apparently, he supports the Nanny State, with the power to compel. Of course, Prez BHO misquoted the Bible.
Edward Bernays is the modern father of propaganda, and what he taught was clearly adopted by govts around the world, including our own. Huge segments of our population have relegated their thinking to the main stream media; these people are a part of the great American Borg, and when the Borg tells them something to think, they think that and act. The Borg was in full operation on 9-11.
I have clients and friends who are commercial pilots. They tell me that flying at an altitude of about 2500 feet and traveling at 340 knots would be an incredibly bumpy flight. At 25 miles out from the WTC, a pilot flying at about 2500 feet would not be able to see the towers. When the towers came into view, a pilot would have to engineer a descent to the height of the towers and line up on them perfectly, while traveling thru turbulence at a high rate of speed. Doing this is like aiming a bullet while riding on it.
Hani Hanjour is claimed by the media and the govt to have piloted Fl. 77 that hit the Pentagon. The media tells us that when in flight training down in Fla., he could not fly even a Cessna. But, he is alleged to have
taken over Fl. 77, flown over to the top of the Pentagon, rapidly descended with a sharp right hand turn at 3 Gs, and piloted that plane for about a quarter of a mile at about 10 feet off the ground to hit only the ground floor of the Pentagon.
I am amazed that people can believe that some Arabs with little or no pilot training could sit in the front of some 757s and expertly guide them into a descent to the height of the Twin Towers and “nail” them
perfectly without missing. I am equally amazed that people believe the official story of Hanjour’s skills. To believe that these Arabs could do this requires you to also believe they had the skills to land on an
aircraft carrier. To me, this is just so much hogwash.
Amalgum Virgo was a war game conducted on June 1-2, 2001. Did you know that on 9-11, there were other war games being conducted? Proof in this respect (along with many others) is a short clip of Cynthia McKinney asking questions of Rumsfeld and several generals at a hearing, the video of which is linked off this page:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/030105_mckinney_question.shtml#1
How did Atta know about the war games being conducted that day? Or is there a possibility that some other force or power arranged the events of 9-11 in the shadows of the war games?
The believers in the Borg theory of 9-11 discount the testimony of witnesses about explosions, and there are a large number of videos on the Net about them. Go here:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm
In the first video at the top of this page, you can see some firemen who just left the WTC on 9-11, and they are reporting explosions. Do a Net search and you find many items like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
Nobody has impeached the testimony of these witnesses, but the official 9-11 Report simply ignores them, as do those who mindlessly follow the official Borg theory.
It is not my purpose via this note to explain everything about 9-11, but just enough to demonstrate that those vile conspiracy theorists like myself are not crackpots without evidence. That which is without
evidence is the official Borg theory, and my objective is simply to find some people whose brains are tied to the Borg, and expose them to info so they might pull themselves away from the effects started by Edward
Bernays.
Some comment that all this discussion about 9-11 is a useless waste of time, which in my view is a “cop-out.” Participating in the battle to learn the truth about 9-11 costs a participant nothing (beyond being
slandered by the Borgites), and trains him in the constitutional right to petition the govt for redress of grievances. Moreover, when you wake somebody up as to this issue, these newbies are ready for the rest of
the truth.
Larry*
-
Best 911 video yet
-
The People Who Live OUTSIDE of the Asylum
There once was an insane people, who lived in a village. In this village, the people believed, with absolute certainty, in money. Money, to them, was an article of faith, desire, and above all things in value.
Outside of this village, aptly named, “The Asylum”, were the remainder of the world of sane people.
They know that money is nothing more than an abstraction, an accounting symbol, and a medium of exchange that facilitates the creation and trade of usable goods and services. Only the usable goods and services had value. Food was valuable to sustain life. Labor was valuable in that it fashioned and accumulated those things needed for life. And the many different things that man’s labor produced
had value in themselves.
The sane people were motivated to be talented, skilled and productive people. They didn’t have external impositions of usury nor tyranny. They were not compelled by anything other than their inner desire that each day they become better people. Each day, they tried to be more, do more, consume less, and share in their bounty with others.
For sharing is the foundation of prosperity. Equitable sharing is the moral high ground. And when you can enjoy a banquet of services, goods and luxuries, life is nigh heaven on earth.
So we all want to know how did the world go insane?
“Primitive” people had no knowledge nor need for money madness. Their lives depended upon effort put forth to acquire the necessities – food, water, shelter, and so on. They shared with others because they depended upon each other. Customs and behavior evolved to make harsh life more bearable and comfortable.
As society advanced, folks could acquire or produce more than they could use themselves. Thus they had something of value to trade with others. Bartering goods and services allowed for more prosperity – people could enjoy much more than they could individually produce or perform.
At some point, those who generated a surplus and traded, concocted the first abstraction for reality – the symbol for value known as money.
Over time, the abstraction of money became an intrinsic part of everyday life. Unfortunately, there were unpleasant side effects.
Where once hospitality was freely shared with visitors, it became a business, charging a hefty fee for the use of the host’s accommodations.
Where once food was shared with strangers, it became a paying enterprise, with a multitude of price levels, quantities and qualities. Even the servers expected gratuities and special payments, lest their service be less than satisfactory.
Where once people helped each other, because it was the normal practice of ‘good neighbors’, it gradually became ‘paid labor’ for all things, great and small.
Over time, folks stopped being unselfish, kind and nice, and only bothered to serve when paid remuneration. (Some have speculated that Europeans who “went Native”, joining with North American tribes, were an early expression of sanity, a rebellion to their mother culture.)
But these weren’t entirely insane people, money mad. They were still “good people”. However, when they fell victim to one of the greatest and most vile of all illusions, that money was to be treated as if it had “natural increase”, they became mad.
From antiquity, most people had a direct exposure to “natural increase”. Plant a seed, harvest much more seeds. Care for livestock, receive an increase after mating season. Why, how simple! Invest in seeds, receive more seeds. Invest in animals, receive more animals. Clever and productive people created all manner of deals to increase their share of “natural increase”.
Along came the usurer, with his “service”. He told his customer, that he would “lend” (invest) his surplus money tokens to him, in exchange for a future repayment of the original sum (principle) and a bit of increase (interest). This, he explained, was nothing less than his due, not unlike “natural increase”. It was explained that the increase was his profit, for the ‘sacrifice’ of his loan. And if the customer FAILED to repay, would default something of value, equal or greater than the terms of the original debt.
This glib explanation was swallowed by the multitude, ignoring the fact that money, unlike plants and animals, was a dead thing and did not reproduce.
And if money was scarce, finite, and invaluable, then there was a huge demand by debtors to acquire it – lest they lose their pledged property. Suddenly, it was more important to gain money than to attend to the ceremonies of polite society, or even the labors and processes that sustained their very life. Why else would people leave the productive land and flock to cities? That was where “the money” was…
Usury certainly flourished wherever there was demand for money tokens beyond the ability of the marketplace to provide. Furthermore, whoever could control the total amount of money tokens in the marketplace, would control the insane world. Any and every method imaginable (or unimaginable) was used in the production, hoarding or manipulation of money tokens. It even extended into the function of
government, originally created to secure rights.
Suddenly, the whole legal fabric was twisted to the needs of usury. Decree or tyranny, it mattered not, for as long as the usurer could command the legion of debtors, the ruler was a figurehead and powerless.
Government, whether at the behest or by approval of the usurer, imposed an obligation upon the subject people to pay their dues only in the form of money tokens. No longer would labor or production be acceptable tribute. Only money was the legal tender for public debts due to “the Protector”. Now, the madness was enforced with the awesome and brutal power of the abstraction for cooperation in defense of people and property – the institution called government.
That which once was created to enhance one’s individual security and protection became the persecutor of the individual, for the sake of the usurer.
Entwined into conflicting demands for money, the average person flounders to find “gainful” occupations. Not unlike the tenant farmer, who must farm a “cash crop” instead of a wide variety of usable foodstuffs to feed his family, the debtor shifted his emphasis to ‘making money’ instead of making a living. Failing that, he resorts to depredation and thievery. Sometimes, the insane also seek to self medicate themselves, and become addicted to narcotics and controlled substances as an escape from a reality that is unreal.
It comes as no surprise that a proportion of insane people act “crazier” and reject the motivations and rules of the money mad culture. Without knowing all the facts, they rebel against the unseen faces, and authoritarian pronouncements that the majority of insane people accept as the status quo.
Perhaps, those who commit suicide or practice self destruction, have an inkling of the insanity, but lack enough information with which to come to grips with truth and reality.
That is the tragedy of living inside an insane asylum. Any attempt at sanity is viewed with suspicion. And worse, becomes targeted for a “cure” that is worse than the original disease.
How did you answer these questions to determine your level of money madness?
(1) If you were a parent of hungry children, how much money do they need to pay you before you will feed them?
Sane people feed their children without expectation of remuneration, by children (or the state)!
(2) If you were the child of aged and infirm parents, how much money do your parents have to pay you before you will care for them?
Sane people care for their parents, regardless of the cost. And recipients of care should be grateful in the sharing, not insanely demanding more and more, as if it was “their due”.
(3) If your blood relative was in need of help, how much money would he have to pay you before you’d come to his assistance?
Sane people come to the aid of those in need. It’s the “Golden Rule”. Especially blood kin are worthy of assistance, for it is the bonds of blood that transcend selfish individuality.
(4) If your community needed your help, as in the case of a bountiful harvest needing more laborers to bring it in, how much would the farmers have to pay you to help prevent the loss of that bounty?
Sane people do what is necessary for the survival of the community, and don’t count the cost until later.
(5) If your business required all its workers to put in a “full day” of work, whether there was something to do or not, and penalized those who did not come in to work, even if not paid, then would you fire any workers who took time off to help farmers during their harvest time?
Sane people wouldn’t penalize workers who came to the aid of others in need.
(6) Do you rate or value labor based upon the amount of money tokens paid, disregarding the necessity of said labor?
Sane people wouldn’t.
(7) Do you hold certain occupations with disdain because of the lesser amount of money tokens paid?
See #6
(8) Do you admire and envy those who acquire large sums of money tokens, but do nothing more productive with their time and resources?
Sane people wouldn’t. And those who are idly wasting their lives, as well as consuming the labors of others are not worthy of our admiration, but should receive our pity.
(9) Are you afraid of the power of those who hold or control large sums of money tokens?
Sane people only fear God, and only if they were predatory or parasitical, harming others in the pursuit of their livelihood. Harmless action in support of one’s life is the sane and moral way of life.
(10) Do you fervently pray to God that someday, you, too, can be “rich”?
See #9.
======================
If you lived outside of the asylum, for who’s benefit would you strive, sweat and toil?
If you believed that God was within you and everyone else, could you honestly feel good about depriving others so that you could have more?
Of course, believing in a deity might be construed as evidence of insanity by those ‘within’ the insane asylum. Obviously, saints who unselfishly labor their entire lives without remuneration in money aren’t entirely ‘sane’!
-
There is a schism coming.
Either the bloated government will collapse, or the “takers” will get kicked out of power, and the “taken” will rise to power.
Either way, the “takers” know they’re in trouble.
Democrats (not the partisan party) are in for a bad time. Because, the system cannot survive an electorate that votes based on how much bribery it can acquire from the public treasury, nor an elected government that is operated on opinion polls, popularity contests and deceit.
The bitter medicine that may be necessary – the disenfranchisement of any recipient of public funds.
Anyone who receives public funds is barred from voting for at least two years. Beggars can’t be choosers. Can’t bite the hand that feeds you – nor can you choose whose hand does the feeding.
Once there is no political advantage gained by pandering to the recipient class, the elected public servants might see the merit in frugal management and careful disbursement of the public’s money.
-
Folks,
The beliefs of many about what happened on 9-11 were formed on that day and during the following weeks, the source for almost all of such beliefs being the main stream media. However, most who believe the official 9-11 Report have only cursorily examined the evidence. Others who devote some time to learning the relevant facts reach a contrary conclusion and conclude that something is terribly wrong.
Those who challenge the official story have formed a number of groups to present their views of the events of that day, and I invite you to examine the facts they present:
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth:
Firefighter for 9/11 Truth:
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
List of war games:
http://deadlinelive.info/2011/08/24/the-46-drills-operations-war-games-and-activities-of-911/
One official site mentioning the 9-11 war games:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm
One glaring flaw in the official 9-11 story is Bldg. 7, which allegedly collapsed because one I-beam set in concrete supposedly moved 5.5 inches. To make steel, coal is cooked in huge coke ovens for 10-12 hours, where the temperatures exceed 1200 degrees. The steel doors to coke ovens do not expand even a fraction of an inch during this process, and there are coke ovens in this country 20 to 50 years old. The mere existence of coke ovens disproves the thesis of Bldg. 7 just falling down as a result of a few fires.
Be curious and learn the truth.
-
The Informer quotes from United States v. Erie R. Co., 106 U.S. 327 (1882):
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12884659214255323684
The dissenting opinion of Justice Field in that case establishes the nonresident alien status of people in the states.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD dissenting.
I am not able to agree with the majority of the court in the decision of this case. The tax which is sustained is, in my judgment, a tax upon the income of non-resident aliens and nothing else. The 122d section of the act of June 30, 1864, c. 173, as amended by that of July 13, 1866, c. 184, subjects the interest on the bonds of the company to a tax of five per cent, *331 and authorizes the company to deduct it from the amount payable to the coupon-holder, whether he be a non-resident alien or a citizen of the United States. The company is thus made the agent of the government [PUBLIC OFFICER!] for the collection of the tax. It pays nothing itself; the tax is exacted from the creditor, the party who holds the coupons for interest. No collocation of words can change this fact. And so it was expressly adjudged with reference to a similar tax in the case of United States v. Railroad Company, reported in the 17th of Wallace. There a tax, under the same statute, was claimed upon the interest of bonds held by the city of Baltimore. And it was decided that the tax was upon the bondholder and not upon the corporation which had issued the bonds; that the corporation was only a convenient means of collecting it; and that no pecuniary burden was cast upon the corporation. This was the precise question upon which the decision of that case turned.
A paragraph from the opinion of the court will show this beyond controversy. “It is not taxation,” said the court, “that government should take from one the profits and gains of another. That is taxation which compels one to pay for the support of the government from his own gains and of his own property. In the cases we are considering, the corporation parts not with a farthing of its own property. Whatever sum it pays to the government is the property of another. Whether the tax is five per cent on the dividend or interest, or whether it be fifty per cent, the corporation is neither richer nor poorer. Whatever it thus pays to the government, it by law withholds from the creditor. If no tax exists, it pays seven per cent, or whatever be its rate of interest, to its creditor in one unbroken sum. If there be a tax, it pays exactly the same sum to its creditor, less five per cent thereof, and this five per cent it pays to the government. The receivers may be two, or the receiver may be one, but the payer pays the same amount in either event. It is no pecuniary burden upon the corporation, and no taxation of the corporation. The burden falls on the creditor. He is the party taxed. In the case before us, this question controls its decision. If the tax were upon the railroad, there is no defence; it must be paid. But we hold that the tax imposed by the 122d section is in substance and in law a tax upon the *332 income of the creditor or stockholder, and not a tax upon the corporation.” See also Haight v. Railroad Company, 6 Wall. 15, and Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 id. 262, 269.
The bonds, upon the interest of which the tax in this case was laid, are held in Europe, principally in England; they were negotiated there; the principal and interest are payable there; they are held by aliens there, and the interest on them has always been paid there. The money which paid the interest was, until paid, the property of the company; when it became the property of the bondholders it was outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.
Where is the authority for this tax? It was said by counsel on the argument of the case — somewhat facetiously, I thought at the time — that Congress might impose a tax upon property anywhere in the world, and this court could not question the validity of the law, though the collection of the tax might be impossible, unless, perchance, the owner of the property should at some time visit this country or have means in it which could be reached. This court will, of course, never, in terms, announce or accept any such doctrine as this. And yet it is not perceived wherein the substantial difference lies between that doctrine and the one which asserts a power to tax, in any case, aliens who are beyond the limits of the country. The debts of the company, owing for interest, are not property of the company, although counsel contended they were, and would thus make the wealth of the country increase by the augmentation of the debts of its corporations. Debts being obligations of the debtors are the property of the creditors, so far as they have any commercial value, and it is a misuse of terms to call them anything else; they accompany the creditors wherever the latter go; their situs is with the latter. I have supposed heretofore that this was common learning, requiring no argument for its support, being, in fact, a self-evident truth, a recognition of which followed its statement. Nor is this the less so because the interest may be called in the statute a part of the gains and profits of the company. Words cannot change the fact, though they may mislead and bewilder. The thing remains through all disguises of terms. If the company makes no gains or profits on its business and borrows the money to *333 meet its interest, though it be in the markets abroad, it is still required under the statute to withhold from it the amount of the taxes. If it pays the interest, though it be with funds which were never in the United States, it must deduct the taxes. The government thus lays a tax, through the instrumentality of the company [PUBLIC OFFICE/WITHHOLDING AGENT], upon the income of a non-resident alien over whom it cannot justly exercise any control, nor upon whom it can justly lay any burden.
The Chief Justice, in his opinion in this case, when affirming the judgment of the District Court, happily condensed the whole matter into a few words. “The tax,” he says, “for which the suit was brought, was the tax upon the owner of the bond, and not upon the defendant. It was not a tax in the nature of a tax in rem upon the bond itself, but upon the income of the owner of the bond, derived from that particular piece of property. The foreign owner of these bonds was not in any respect subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, neither was this portion of his income. His debtor was, and so was the money of his debtor; but the money of his debtor did not become a part of his income until it was paid to him, and in this case the payment was outside of the United States, in accordance with the obligations of the contract which he held. The power of the United States to tax is limited to persons, property, and business within their jurisdiction, as much as that of a State is limited to the same subjects within its jurisdiction. State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300.”
“A personal tax,” says the Supreme Court of New Jersey, “is the burden imposed by government on its own citizens for the benefits which that government affords by its protection and its laws, and any government which should attempt to impose such a tax on citizens of other States would justly incur the rebuke of the intelligent sentiment of the civilized world.” State v. Ross, 23 N.J.L. 517, 521.
In imposing a tax, says Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, the legislature acts upon its constituents. “All subjects,” he adds, “over which the power of a State extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition *334 may almost be pronounced self-evident.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 428.
There are limitations upon the powers of all governments, without any express designation of them in their organic law; limitations which inhere in their very nature and structure, and this is one of them, — that no rightful authority can be exercised by them over alien subjects, or citizens resident abroad or over their property there situated. This doctrine may be said to be axiomatic, and courts in England have felt it so obligatory upon them, that where general terms, used in acts of Parliament, seem to contravene it, they have narrowed the construction to avoid that conclusion. In a memorable case decided by Lord Stowell, which involved the legality of the seizure and condemnation of a French vessel engaged in the slave trade, which was, in terms, within an act of Parliament, that distinguished judge said: “That neither this British act of Parliament nor any commission founded on it can affect any right or interest of foreigners unless they are founded upon principles and impose regulations that are consistent with the law of nations. That is the only law which Great Britain can apply to them, and the generality of any terms employed in an act of Parliament must be narrowed in construction by a religious adherence thereto.” The Le Louis, 2 Dod. 210, 239.
Similar language was used by Mr. Justice Bailey of the King’s Bench, where the question was whether the act of Parliament, which declared the slave trade and all dealings therewith unlawful, justified the seizure of a Spanish vessel, with a cargo of slaves on board, by the captain of an English naval vessel, and it was held that it did not. The odiousness of the trade would have carried the justice to another conclusion if the public law would have permitted it, but he said, “That, although the language used by the legislature in the statute referred to is undoubtedly very strong, yet it can only apply to British subjects, and can only render the slave trade unlawful if carried on by them; it cannot apply in any way to a foreigner. It is true that if this were a trade contrary to the law of nations a foreigner could not maintain this action. But it is not; and as a Spaniard could not be considered as bound by the acts of the British legislature prohibiting this trade, it would be unjust to deprive *335 him of a remedy for the heavy damage he has sustained.” Madrazo v. Willes, 3 Barn. & Ald. 353.
In The Apollon, a libel was filed against the collector of the District of St. Mary’s for damages occasioned by the seizure of the ship and cargo whilst lying in a river within the territory of the King of Spain, and Mr. Justice Story said, speaking for the court, that “The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own jurisdiction, except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction. And however general and comprehensive the phraseology used in our municipal laws may be, they must always be restricted in construction to places and persons upon whom the legislatures have authority and jurisdiction.” 9 Wheat. 362.
When the United States became a separate and independent nation, they became, as said by Chancellor Kent, “subject to that system of rules which reason, morality, and custom had established among the enlightened nations of Europe as their public law,” and by the light of that law must their dealings with persons of a foreign jurisdiction be considered; and according to that law there could be no debatable question, that the jurisdiction of the United States over persons and property ends where the foreign jurisdiction begins.
What urgent reasons press upon us to hold that this doctrine of public law may be set aside, and that the United States, in disregard of it, may lawfully treat as subject to their taxing power the income of non-resident aliens, derived from the interest received abroad on bonds of corporations of this country negotiable and payable there? If, in the form of taxes, the United States may authorize the withholding of a portion of such interest, the amount will be a matter in their discretion; they may authorize the whole to be withheld. And if they can do this, why may not the States do the same thing with reference to the bonds issued by corporations created under their laws. They will not be slow to act upon the example set. If such a tax may be levied by the United States in the rightful exercise of their taxing power, why may not a similar tax be levied upon the interest on bonds of the same corporations by the States within their respective jurisdictions in the rightful *336 exercise of their taxing power? What is sound law for one sovereignty ought to be sound law for another.
It is said, in answer to these views, that the governments of Europe — or at least some of them, where a tax is laid on incomes — deduct from the interest on their public debts the tax due on the amount as income, whether payable to a non-resident alien or a subject of the country. This is true in some instances, and it has been suggested in justification of it that the interest, being payable at their treasuries, is under their control, the money designated for it being within their jurisdiction when set apart for the debtor, who must in person or by agent enter the country to receive it. That presents a case different from the one before us in this, — that here the interest is payable abroad, and the money never becomes the property of the debtor until actually paid to him there. So, whether we speak of the obligation of the company to the holder of the coupons, or the money paid in its fulfilment, it is held abroad, not being, in either case, within the jurisdiction of the United States. And with reference to the taxation of the interest on public debts, Mr. Phillimore, in his Treatise on International Laws, says: “It may be quite right that a person having an income accruing from money lent to a foreign State should be taxed by his own country on his income derived from this source; and if his own country impose an income tax, it is, of course, a convenience to all parties that the government which is to receive the tax should deduct it from the debt which, in this instance, that government owes to the payer of the tax, and thus avoid a double process; but a foreigner, not resident in the State, is not liable to be taxed by the State; and it seems unjust to a foreign creditor to make use of the machinery which, on the ground of convenience, is applied in the cases of domestic creditors, in order to subject him to a tax to which he is not on principle liable.” Vol. ii. pp. 14, 15.
Here, also, is a further difference: the tax here is laid upon the interest due on private contracts. As observed by counsel, no other government has ever undertaken to tax the income of subjects of another nation accruing to them at their own domicile upon property held there, and arising out of ordinary business, or contracts between individuals.
*337 This case is decided upon the authority of Railroad Company v. Collector, reported in 100 U.S., and the doctrines from which I dissent necessarily flow from that decision. When that decision was announced I was apprehensive that the conclusions would follow which I now see to be inevitable. It matters not what the interest may be called, whether classed among gains and profits, or covered up by other forms of expression, the fact remains, the tax is laid upon it, and that is a tax which comes from the party entitled to the interest, — here, a non-resident alien in England, who is not, and never has been, subject to the jurisdiction of this country.
In that case the tax is called an excise on the business of the class of corporations mentioned, and is held to be laid, not on the bondholder who receives the interest, but upon the earnings of the corporations which pay it. How can a tax on the interest to be paid be called a tax on the earnings of the corporation if it earns nothing — if it borrows the money to pay the interest? How can it be said not to be a tax upon the income of the bondholder when out of his interest the tax is deducted?
That case was not treated as one, the disposition of which was considered important, as settling a rule of action. The opening language of the opinion is: “As the sum involved in this suit is small, and the law under which the tax in question was collected has long since been repealed, the case is of little consequence as regards any principle involved in it as a rule of future action.” But now it is invoked in a case of great magnitude, and many other similar cases, as we are informed, are likely soon to be before us; and though it overrules repeated and solemn adjudications rendered after full argument and mature deliberation, though it is opposed to one of the most important and salutary principles of public law, it is to be received as conclusive, and no further word from the court, either in explanation or justification of it, is to be heard. I cannot believe that a principle so important as the one announced here, and so injurious in its tendencies, so well calculated to elicit unfavorable comment from the enlightened sentiment of the civilized world, will be allowed to pass unchallenged, though the court is silent upon it.
I think the judgment should be affirmed.
[United States v. Erie R. Co., 106 U.S. 327 (1882)]
Note some key points from the above dissenting opinion of Justice Field:
1. The tax imposed is an EXCISE and FRANCHISE tax upon the “benefits” of the protection of a specific municipal government. Those who DON’T WANT or NEED such protection are NOT the lawful subjects of the tax. These people are called “nonresident aliens”.
“A personal tax,” says the Supreme Court of New Jersey, “is the burden imposed by government on its own citizens for the benefits which that government affords by its protection and its laws, and any government which should attempt to impose such a tax on citizens of other States would justly incur the rebuke of the intelligent sentiment of the civilized world.” State v. Ross, 23 N.J.L. 517, 521.
2. The United States has no jurisdiction outside its own borders or outside its own TERRITORY, meaning federal territory. Constitutional states of the Union are NOT federal territory.
” the jurisdiction of the United States over persons and property ends where the foreign jurisdiction begins.”
3. The only way that any legal PERSON, including a government, can reach outside its own territory is by exercising its right to contract, which means that it can ONLY act upon those who EXPRESSLY consent and thereby contract with the sovereign. That consent is manifested by calling oneself a STATUTORY “citizen”. Those who don’t consent to the franchise protection contract call themselves statutory “nonresident aliens”.
Debitum et contractus non sunt nullius loci.
Debt and contract [franchise agreement, in this case] are of no particular place.
Locus contractus regit actum.
The place of the contract [franchise agreement, in this case] governs the act.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…viersMaxims.htm]
4. The tax is upon the RECIPIENT, not the company making the payment. The “taxpayer” is the recipient of the payment, and hence, the company paying the recipient is NOT the “taxpayer”. The company, in turn, is identified as an “agent of the government”, meaning a withholding agent and therefore PUBLIC OFFICER. WHY? Because the Erie railroad is a FEDERAL and not STATE corporation. They hid this from their ruling. If they had been a PRIVATE company that was NOT a FEDERAL corporation, they could not lawfully act as agents of the government.
“It is not taxation,” said the court, “that government should take from one the profits and gains of another. That is taxation which compels one to pay for the support of the government from his own gains and of his own property. In the cases we are considering, the corporation parts not with a farthing of its own property. Whatever sum it pays to the government is the property of another. Whether the tax is five per cent on the dividend or interest, or whether it be fifty per cent, the corporation is neither richer nor poorer. Whatever it thus pays to the government, it by law withholds from the creditor. If no tax exists, it pays seven per cent, or whatever be its rate of interest, to its creditor in one unbroken sum. If there be a tax, it pays exactly the same sum to its creditor, less five per cent thereof, and this five per cent it pays to the government. The receivers may be two, or the receiver may be one, but the payer pays the same amount in either event. It is no pecuniary burden upon the corporation, and no taxation of the corporation. The burden falls on the creditor. He is the party taxed. In the case before us, this question controls its decision. If the tax were upon the railroad, there is no defence; it must be paid. But we hold that the tax imposed by the 122d section is in substance and in law a tax upon the *332 income of the creditor or stockholder, and not a tax upon the corporation.” See also Haight v. Railroad Company, 6 Wall. 15, and Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 id. 262, 269.
5. The recipient is a non-resident alien BECAUSE he has a foreign DOMICILE. NOT because he has a foreign NATIONALITY.
6. The FOREIGN DOMICILE makes the target of the tax a STATUTORY “alien” but not necessarily a CONSTITUTIONAL alien.
“Here, also, is a further difference: the tax here is laid upon the interest due on private contracts. As observed by counsel, no other government has ever undertaken to tax the income of subjects of another nation accruing to them at their own domicile upon property held there, and arising out of ordinary business, or contracts between individuals.”
7. The “non-resident alien” is COMPLETELY outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Hence, it is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for such a person to become a statutory “taxpayer”.
7.1 Let the company illegally withhold earnings of a nontaxpayer.
7.2 Make getting a refund of amounts withheld a “privilege” in which he has to request a “INDIVIDUAL Taxpayer Identification Number” (ITIN) that makes him a statutory “individual”.
7.3 After he gets the number ILLEGALLY, force him to file “taxpayer” tax return. If he refuses to do that, then they refuse to refund the amount withheld. That’s international terrorism and extortion.
“The government thus lays a tax, through the instrumentality of the company, upon the income of a non-resident alien over whom it cannot justly exercise any control, nor upon whom it can justly lay any burden.”
8. The laws of a nation ONLY apply to its own STATUTORY citizens who have a domicile on FEDERAL TERRITORY. They do NOT apply to STATUTORY aliens with a foreign domicile.
“The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own jurisdiction, except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction. And however general and comprehensive the phraseology used in our municipal laws may be, they must always be restricted in construction to places and persons upon whom the legislatures have authority and jurisdiction.” 9 Wheat. 362.
9. If you are not a STATUTORY citizen (per 8 U.S.C. 1401, 26 U.S.C. 3121(d) and 26 CFR 1.1-1(c )), which Justice Field calls a “SUBJECT”, then you can’t be taxed. Field refers to those who can’t be taxes as “aliens”, and he can only mean STATUTORY aliens, not CONSTITUTIONAL aliens:
“All subjects,” he adds, “over which the power of a State extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition *334 may almost be pronounced self-evident.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 428.
10. The court KNEW they were pulling a fast one on the people, because they were SILENT on so many important issues that Field pointed out.
“. . .though it is opposed to one of the most important and salutary principles of public law, it is to be received as conclusive, and no further word from the court, either in explanation or justification of it, is to be heard. I cannot believe that a principle so important as the one announced here, and so injurious in its tendencies, so well calculated to elicit unfavorable comment from the enlightened sentiment of the civilized world, will be allowed to pass unchallenged, though the court is silent upon it.”
11. Justice Field says the abuse of “words of art” mask the nature of the above criminal extortion:
“Words cannot change the fact, though they may mislead and bewilder. The thing remains through all disguises of terms.”
12. If you want to search for cases on “nonresident aliens” defined in 26 USC 7701( b )(1)(B ), the Supreme Court spells them differently than the code itself. You have to search for “non-resident alien” instead.
Those further interested in this subject should look at the ruling off former President and Chief Justice Taft in Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924), in which he further expands the dubious holding of this case to imply that the tax applies to ALL statutory citizens in the whole world, wherever they are.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10657110310496192378
The unconstitutional nature of the majority opinion in the above case is discussed at length in (OFFSITE LINKS):
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018, Section 5
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…urisdiction.pdf
The entirety of this post also appears in the following. It has been reposted with permission from the original author:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 3.2
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf
-
This video doesn’t suggest exactly why these people are being forced off their own land and asked to destroy their own land, but the reason seems clear: Its all about the money. They want revenues from these land owners. They want them to avail themselves of the benefits of the Torrens Land Registration franchise.
ALL private land in California is EXEMPT from ALL corporate city/county zoning ordinances/codes under the authority of the original Spanish Land Grant or U.S.A. Land Patent. See e.g. Summa Corporation v. State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission, etc., 80 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984) on authority of Land Patent/Grant over state law.
-
How to apply the above article.
EXPERIENCE which is summarized in feelings plus a minimun of conscious information.
For example Steve Jobs gives only 3 pieces of information about any product he sells. And he aims those three pieces of info at what people DESIRE (feelings). As a result, Apple has more money in the bank than the gov. (Keep in mind here that money is not the issue, the issue is how to help people make decisions with minimal, but relevant information).
-
It may have changed. Why don’t you call social security and ask them?
-
In Praise of the Fifth Amendment
-
Don’t Talk to the Cops, Part 2