fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
What’s in the sweeping copyright bill just passed by the European Parliament
Legislation now goes to a three-way negotiation within the EU.
-
Her is a reply to the above from another site:
_____________________
There is a LOT more that this post did not include (for space I would guess):
See: Flashback 1957: U.S. News and World Report Declares ” There is No “Fourteenth Amendment”! https://rtrtruthmedia.blogspot.com/2018/07/1957-us-news-and-world-report-declares.html
N.B. Fourteenth Amendment (07/09/1868) § 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.):
Oregon House Resolution Rescinding the 14th-Amendment Ratification due to Fraud and Usurpation (11/20/1868); http://oregon-house-resolution-rescinding-the-14th-amendment-ratification-due-to-fraud-and-usurpation.pdf/ *
The 14th Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States And The Threat That It Poses To Our Democratic Government 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484 (McElwee, 1959); http://www.14th-amendment.com/Miscellaneous/Articles/South_Carolina_Law_Review/South_Carolina_Law_Quarterly_%5BVol._11_1959%5D.pdf … http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mcelwee/11SCLQ484.pdf
The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment, 28 Tulane Law Review 22 (Suthon, 1953); http://www.14th-amendment.com/Miscellaneous/Articles/Tulane_Law_Review/Tulane_Law_Revies_%5BVol._XXVIII%5D.pdf … http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/suthon/28TLR22.pdf
The Unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment (Hon. Leander H. Perez, House Congressional Record, 13 June 1967) http://www.crownrights.com/books/unconstitutionality_fourteenth_amendment.htm … http://www.ncrepublic.org/judgeperez.html
The Hijacking of the Fourteenth Amendment, by Doug Hammerstrom: http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf
THE NULL, VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL 14TH AMENDMENT http://usa-the-republic.com/amendment_14/Amendment%2014.pdf
GOVERNMENT BY JUDICIARY: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (RAOUL BERGER, 1977-2005); http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Berger0051/GovernmentByJudiciary/0003_eBk.pdf
Senate Report No. 268 “To inquire into and report to the Senate the effect of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution upon the Indian tribes of this country.” http://207.234.243.79/Statutes_Proclamations/Reports/41st_Congress_3d._Sess._Report_No._268/page_frame.htm
The “Conspiracy Theory” of the Fourteenth Amendment (Howard J. Graham, Yale L.J. Vol. 47 371) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
THE 14TH AMENDMENT – EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION Congressional Record — House June 13, 1967 H7161); http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1279557/posts … http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/14amrec.htm
U.S.A. The Republic, The House That No One Lives In: http://usa-the-republic.com/Lee%20Brobst/usa.html … ROAD WARRIOR RADIO: JANUARY 7, 2009; http://republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=archives.month&ProgramID=46&year=9&month=1&backURL=index.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives.getyear%2526ProgramID%253D46%26year%3D9%26backURL%3Dindex.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives
N.B. U.S. v. Stahl, 792 F2d. 1438 (9th Cir. 1986) (The question of ratification of Constitutional Amendments is a Political Question.); http://www.14th-amendment.com/Court_Documents/U.S._v._Stahl/U.S._v._Stahl.pdf
SOURCE: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/there-is-no-fourteenth-amendment/230075
-
Revocation of Citizenship
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1997/03/31/op-olc-v021-p0044.pdf
-
False statements in the above article:
- FALSE STATEMENT: “The truth about Social Security today is that it works extremely well.”
REBUTTAL: The only thing it does extremely well is create government deficits and government debt that currently threatens the insolvency and bankrupting of the government. - FALSE STATEMENT: “It is completely consistent with the founder’s vision and in fact, ”
REBUTTAL: No its not. Look what one of the founders said about it:
““With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
[James Madison. House of Representatives, February 7, 1792, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties; More quotes like this later in section 5.1]”
It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it… For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars… But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? (Federalists #41)
[Federalist #41. Saturday, January 19, 1788, James Madison]
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
That of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
[Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1020.htm and
http://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jefferson-opinion-on-national-bank-1791] - FALSE STATEMENT: “It is extremely important to everyone. ”
REBUTTAL: Its vital only for those CURRENTLY receiving “benefits”. It’s not vital for those PAYING for the benefits out of CURRENT payroll withholding. There is no trust fund and you don’t receive what you paid in. - FALSE STATEMENT: “One huge misconception is that it is going bankrupt and it is unaffordable. Whether to expand Social Security or cut Social Security is a question of values, not affordability.
REBUTTAL: Yes, it will cause the bankruptcy of the government. Currently, over 70% of the federal budget is entitlements. If in fact the founders had wanted this, they would have STARTED that way. Entitlements weren’t available, even to the poor. There has NEVER been legal justice for the poor from the beginning, as we pointed out in:
What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050, Section 8
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf
Altman is pitifully legally ignorant and appears to know NOTHING about the intent of the founding fathers. Such a pathetically ignorant person should not be answering such questions.
For exhaustive proof of why she is simply wrong, see:
1. Social Security: Mark of the Beast, Form #11.407
http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/TOC.htm2. Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #5.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf - FALSE STATEMENT: “The truth about Social Security today is that it works extremely well.”
-
Bradhef,
1. You may have downloaded the document from a third party website initially that had an older version posted. It is always best to download from OUR download page, which is guaranteed to have the latest version:
https://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
2. We also frequently update the Hoax book WITHOUT modifying the revision log. The last version you downloaded has additional data added without changing the version number.
3. You are probably are not downloading from an unauthorized source and there is no fowl play. We just expanded the doc without modifying the Revision history or changing the version number. If we didn’t do it this way, the Revision history would be HUGE.
4. The document has been under constant revision since we started it in 2000. It began as less than 800 pages, grew to over 2800 pages, was split into three books, and has since grown back up to 2800 pages. Its a lifelong project because the fraud goes so deep.
Nevertheless, thanks for noticing.
-
Those interested in a thorough and complete rebuttal to the lead post should read the following:
Policy Document: Freedom Law School Approach Towards Citizenship, Form #08.022
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/FLSCitizenship.pdf
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm -
We don’t doubt Peymon’s sincerity. However, the above article suffers several defects:
- It doesn’t acknowledge the TWO components of citizenship: nationality (political status) v. domicile (civil status). Civil status is the origin of civil statutory authority. You can have nationality and a political status WITHOUT a civil domicile, and be protected by the bill of rights WITHOUT being protected by the civil statutes.
- It doesn’t acknowledge the VOLUNTARY nature of membership in a jural society for EACH of the two componets above. If the First Amendment and the common law mean anything at all, they must mean that you have a right NOT to receive or pay for any “benefit” associated with either of the two components of citizenship.
- It doesn’t acknowledge the right to NOT receive or pay for the “benefit” in SPECIFIC circumstances. For instance, being a “citizen” while abroad but not at home, or being a citizen for one title of code but not for another. Each title of code is and should be independent and receiving the “benefit” of one should not mean you are obligated to receive the benefit and pay for ALL civil statutes or franchises. That violates the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court.
- It refuses to acknowledge the TWO separate geographical jurisdictions that the national government legislates for:
4.1. Territories/possession;
4.2 States of the Union. - It doesn’t acknowledge the nature of membership as a public office. Anything that conveys or transfers otherwise PRIVATE rights or control over rights to the government MUST involve a public office or government agency of some kind. See:
Proof That There is a “Straw Man”, Form #05.042
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf - It refuses to acknowledge that the right to legislate for individuals is limited to territories/possessions and NOT states of the Union. THIS is what the founders were talking about in the quotes he cites. The enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution place NO obligations or authority over the individual in a state of the Union UNLESS they are public officers within the government. Otherwise, they are PRIVATE and beyond the legislative authority of government. This even includes federal criminal statutes. Case in point is the money laundering statutes and crimes. See:
Money Laundering Enforcement Scam, Form #05.044
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm - For the record, we DON’T claim any of the following in relation to state citizenship:
7.1 A “state citizen” is not a “person.”
7.2 “Resident” means only a temporary place of living, and is for U.S. citizens, not state citizens.
7.3 A state citizen is individually sovereign.
7.4 Income taxation is primarily based on your status as a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen.
7.5 The word “United States” means only Washington D.C. and federal territories. - Instead, we claim that:
8.1 Whether one is a civil statutory “person” is determined by the DOMICILE, and not their NATIONALITY. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
8.2 “resident” means an ALIEN and not a citizen of any kind in statutes. Someone who claims to be a “resident” in relation to any government or on a government form is SURRENDERING what he calls the “privileges and immunities” of a citizen.
8.3 Sovereignty is achieved by NOT being a statutory citizen. You can’t be “sovereign” and be a STATUTORY “state citizen” with a domicile “in this state” as defined in California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 6017 and 17018.
8.4 The word “United States” has at least FOUR different meanings, three of which are geographical and one of which means the federal corporation. See:
Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011, Section 1
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm - The article refuses to acknowledge the TWO types of protection afforded by “gangs” as he calls them: Civil and Criminal.
9.1 You can receive CRIMINAL protection WITHOUT being a member of any kind.
9.2 The only type of protection that is contingent on membership is CIVIL STATUTORY protection.
9.3 Common law protection ALSO does not require membership, but mere physical presence on the territory.
As usual, Peymon’s understanding of the law is incomplete. The subjects listed above constitutes an injury to both himself and his clients.
Finally, those wishing to explore the above nuances of citizenship should read the following:
- Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf - Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm
-
The domain was shut down and repurposed by an unrelated third party. If you want to see the old version, go to:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://nontaxpayer.org
The new owner of the domain is probably a cybersquatter who wants to charge the person who REALLY needs the domain name an arm and a leg to get it.
-
Thanks for pointing that out.
The error with “U.S.” was fixed long ago but the fix was not posted. It is now.
We did a search on the version we just posted and can’t find the problem in the new one. If you do find the problem. please cite the page number and line number where it is found.
-
Neither this ministry nor any member are or may call themselves “sovereign citizen”. The reasons are described in:
Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018, Section 6.1 and 6.2
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebFalseArgSovereignty.pdf -
The above notice is a FRAUD because:
1. It says “you” but really can only mean FEDERAL and not STATE government workers.
2. For proof that it is a FRAUD, see:
Getting a USA Passport as a “State National”, Form #10.012, Section 11
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htmIt is a FRAUD because:
1. There are no implementing regulations applying the statutes that implement it from applying to the general public.
2. Title 42, like Title 26, is not positive law and therefore is public policy disguised to LOOK like law.
3. Child support is computed based on STATUTORY “gross income” which is earnings of a public officer on official business. Private people who are not “individuals” (aliens) or “persons” cannot earn “gross income” or “income” or “reportable income” and therefore cannot owe child support.
4. All federal law is territorial. If you don’t either have a domicile on federal territory or represent an office so domiciled, it is IRRELEVANT as admitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.
-
1. We frequently use these forums to record things we have found elsewhere that deserve apologetic attention in our forums. In that sense, the forums function as kind of a Microsoft Notes place for storage.
2. The lead post was not something authored by us and we do not agree with it. It was the writing of a third party
3. We had posted it here as a placeholder for a later direct treatment of each issue raised. We sent it to someone highly qualified with a Phd in theology hoping they would rebut it, but they never did and we haven’t had time to rebut it ourself.
4. So long as we aren’t the source and so long as it is merely a placeholder that we don’t agree with deserving later apologetics, we don’t see a harm in posting it here. Even though it may APPEAR to violate forum policy it is posted to invite a rebuttal from our members, not to bolster the atheist position.
-
Absolutely, but on two conditions:
1. If it is good, we insist on publishing it on this or a sister site, as we have done many times before for other authors.
2. We reserve the right to reuse the end product in other documents available through this site.
To ensure that our time is not wasted, please perform excruciating quality control on it so we don’t become a grammar and spelling checker and can focus on CONTENT, rather than mechanics.
-
Kamiron,
You have completely missed the dictionary definition of socialism:
“socialism n (1839) 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
[Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, ISBN 0-87779-510-X, page 1118]Problems with what you just said:
1. “ ALL PEOPLE control public affairs”. FALSE. Not ALL people want to be citizens or residents or participate in the state by claiming or pursuing such status. That includes us. Therefore, NOT “all people” control public affairs, but a SMALL SUBSET. The USA has the lowest voter participation in the world, and those who don’t participate control NOTHING and are NOT “represented” by those in power because they don’t “choose” those in power. See:
Non-resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf2. “No where in the definition of Socialism does it say that the Government controls everything, nor is it ever implied in Socialism that there is no such thing as Private Ownership. ” FALSE. The definition above says
“ governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state”.
That means, fundamentally, that the government owns or controls EVERYTHING. You can’t on the one hand claim that there is no private property, and on the other hand claim that the PUBLIC doesn’t control all property. The two go together. The essence of ownership is the right to exclude. If you can’t exclude the GOVERNMENT or the STATE from using, benefitting from, or controlling your property that you don’t injure others with means the STATE is the owner of EVERYTHING. Can you deprive the government from “property tax” on your house without LOSING your house? Then you don’t OWN your house.
You need to study the laws of property because you obviously don’t understand them. See:
Enumeration of Inalienable Rights, Form #10.002, Sections 6 and 7
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/EnumRights.pdf3. “Virtually EVERY parable in the Bible that Jesus makes about the Kingdom of Heaven is basically a definition of Socialism.” False. Every parable describes control or ownership of all property by God and NOT man, and identifies us essentially as STEWARDS over God’s Property. Ownership or control of everything is NOT “collective” ownership because God is SINGULAR and NOT collective AND because you are not allowed to be God and therefore cannot control what belongs to God without following His instructions in the Bible trust indenture.
4. “In my own words, Capitalism is the Service-to-Self model of Service based on Slavery, while Socialism is the Service-to-Others model of Freedom based on Service.” NO. Christians following the capitalist model are ultimately acting as stewards for God under the Bible Trust Indenture, and therefore are NOT doing so mainly for the benefit of SELF, but rather for God as the owner and CREATOR of anything and everything.
5. “How can a devout Christian be so against Socialism, unless they have a grave misunderstanding of what it really is?”
ANSWER: Socialism is control by a MAN or a group of men of all property. Christianity is control by God through his Bible trust indenture. We are only Christians when we obey His law and his delegation order in the Bible:Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, 13.007
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf6. Even when the “public” or the “state” or the “government” CLAIMS ownership and/or control of all property, ultimately that control is not shared by everyone because those who choose NOT to be part of the civil state and not statutory “persons” cannot exert ANY control and are therefore PUNISHED in violation of the First Amendment for disassociating civilly with the state. Every system of government must recognize those who are NOT part of the state but who where born in the country, and not deprive them of any and all property by giving MONOPOLY control or ownership effectively to the state. That would DEFINITELY NOT be a “republic” based on individual rights and private property. A person without the right to absolutely and exclusively own PRIVATE property is a SLAVE and chattel of the collective, not a free human being. This is explained in:
Ministry Introduction Course, Form #12.014
https://sedm.org/Ministry/MinistryIntro.pdfIN CONCLUSION: Your research is totally inadequate and totally incomplete because you missed the most BASIC aspects of the dictionary definition of socialism and your explanation completely contradicts that definition. For more definitions, See:
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “Socialism”
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/Socialism.htmWe shouldn’t have to explain such BASIC observations as the above. If public school didn’t teach you the above, your education was a waste.
-
Bing,
1. An exhaustive memorandum of law has already been written on due process. It is found at:
Requirement for Due Process of Law,, Form #05.045
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htmUnfortunately, its a Member Subscription form like the Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032 and you to my knowledge don’t seem interested not only in SEDM, but in becoming a Subscriber so you could read such things. It’s pointless to reinvent the wheel.
2. Calling something law that isn’t positive law and giving it the “force of law” without satisfying the government burden of proving it has the force of law upon the specific party is where the due process violation BEGINS.
3. Due process is also violated by adding things to definitions that don’t expressly appear. When combined with the above, you end up with a court sponsored “religion” established exclusively by false presumption, which violates the rules of evidence, the First Amendment, and so many other things. It’s just a huge FRAUD. See:
Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm4. You speak of defending oneself against due process violations, but our approach uses the same violations against them in reverse, so they fight the battle against due process FOR us and we just sit back and watch. Under the concept of equal protection and equal treatment, if they can use presumption to give something the force of law, so can we. That’s the Sun Tzu approach, I’m sure you know: Use your enemies greatest strength against them and in your favor.