fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
The form is fixed and reposted. All the issues you pointed out have been fixed.
The form was not copy protected and you could have made the changes yourself. All you need is a PDF editing program such as Adobe Acrobat or any number of other editors listed in Section 1 of the very page you downloaded the form from:
http://famguardian.o…RSFormsPubs.htm
The Form W-2CC mentioned in the form is available at:
Form W-2CC, Form #04.304 (OFFSITE LINKS)
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…t/FormW-2CC.pdf
We aren’t responsible for the Form W-2CC so please don’t ask us questions about it.
In the future, please make your own corrections and post them to these forums with the errata.
Thanks
-
SOURCE: http://sanders.senat…53-62060dcbb3c3
You can find the FULL audit report by the GAO on Family Guardian at:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/GAOFedInvestigation-GAO-11-696.pdf
____________
The Fed Audit
July 21, 2011
The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,” said Sanders. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”
Among the investigation’s key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. “No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president,” Sanders said.
The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress also determined that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.
For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed’s board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed’s emergency lending programs.
In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. One reason the Fed did not make Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it might have created the appearance of a conflict of interest.
To Sanders, the conclusion is simple. “No one who works for a firm receiving direct financial assistance from the Fed should be allowed to sit on the Fed’s board of directors or be employed by the Fed,” he said.
The investigation also revealed that the Fed outsourced most of its emergency lending programs to private contractors, many of which also were recipients of extremely low-interest and then-secret loans.
The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were no-bid contracts. Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4 million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.
A more detailed GAO investigation into potential conflicts of interest at the Fed is due on Oct. 18, but Sanders said one thing already is abundantly clear. “The Federal Reserve must be reformed to serve the needs of working families, not just CEOs on Wall Street.”
To read the GAO report, click here.
-
EDITORIAL: Newsletter by Pete Hendrickson while still in jail. He brings up a lot of new issues in the attachment on the “trade or business” scam that we haven’t seen before now.
______________
08/05/11
MEET THE TROLLS
For the ninth year in a row, the accuracy of the liberating, people-empowering, Leviathan-restraining revelations about the real character of the income tax in ‘Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America’ (CtC) is being demonstrated in the most practical manner possible. Complete refund checks, closing notices, lien and levy releases and other concrete acknowledgements of that accuracy by federal and state tax agencies are flooding mailboxes across America, just as in all the previous years since the book was first published.
In light of these long years of unambiguous admissions by government agencies, now churning out in their tens of thousands, it shouldn’t be necessary for me to write the commentary that follows. But sadly, even while reluctantly complying with the law when demanded by upstanding, well-educated readers of CtC, the same agencies harbor nests of specialists whose job is to do what they can to slow or even stop the spread of the liberating truth about the tax.
Like sweaty, bile-fueled little trolls lurking under cognitive cross-overs, these operatives crank out blog and news-group posts, and even entire websites, focused on undermining the CtC-educated community and stunting its growth. All of these feverish efforts are richly salted with frustration and hate against good Americans who have now read the law for themselves, found that it doesn’t say what the hired help has been telling everyone it means since before any of us was born, and have stood up and stepped off the “Kool-Aid Express To Ruin and Despotism” on which ignorance about the law will guarantee you a seat. All of these efforts rely on lies and logical fallacies to discourage the liberated and frighten them back on the bus, and to keep others from learning the truth in the first place.
Happily, upon competent examination every mendacity cranked-out by troll-kind simply underscores the accuracy of CtC and the desperation of its enemies. So, while having to discuss this stuff is a chore, it is a fruitful one from which we can all take intellectual and spiritual nourishment. We can also enjoy a little welcome entertainment watching the slinky trolls take their richly-deserved tumbles.”
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES–
NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING, BUT YOU CAN’T HELP SMILING
WHEN YOU SEE ONE TUMBLE DOWN THE STAIRS
A Critical Look at Selected Trolleries
(Click on the title above, or navigate your browser to losthorizons.com/TumblingTrollsFinal8-1-11.pdf)
P. S. A Road Map to Winning the War of Truth v. Lies
It’s this simple: When the New York Times or the Washington Post or USA Today or your hometown daily publishes or discusses or acknowledges what you read in this pamphlet (and especially what you read in the chapter ‘Why All The Troll-Work Is Futile’), the truth will win. That will happen shortly after Lew Rockwell, Alex Jones, Justin Raimondo, Glenn Greenwald, Paul Craig Roberts, Jacob Hornberger, Ron Paul and other big voices on the side of liberty and the law publish, discuss and acknowledge this material.
Those good folks will only publish, discuss and acknowledge this material once enough of YOU good folks forward it to them, and insist that they read it carefully and react to it seriously and thoughtfully (rather than just skimming it quickly and adopting a dismissive, “What I THINK this says can’t possibly be true…” attitude, which will be their reflexive inclination).
A CAREFUL reading of this material, and SERIOUS and THOUGHTFUL reaction to it by these folks will have the good effect desired because what they will read is, of course, completely and demonstrably true, even though it will turn much of what they have each long believed completely on its head. A thoughtful and honest reaction will necessarily be that of acknowledgement, astonishment, excitement, agitation and the moving of this liberating information onto the national stage and into the national consciousness.
Once on the national stage, the truth will be assaulted, smeared, laughed at, growled at, declared irrelevant, evaded and misrepresented, until ultimately it is universally acknowledged and accepted. Because again, it’s nothing but the truth. Then the war will be over, and the good guys will have won.
So, each of you please do your best to see to it that Lew, and Ron, and Glenn, and Justin, and Paul Craig, and Will, and William, and Thomas E., and Thomas Di, and Karen K., and all the other good folks with big voices who are doing THEIR very best to uphold the law read this pamphlet and learn this liberating, law-sustaining, Leviathan-restraining truth.
Don’t leave it to others to do, because if there’s one thing you can be sure of, it’s that those “others” are leaving it to you.
It’s on you, and you can do it. And not long after you have, we’ll all celebrate V-IT Day (“Victory over the Ignorance Tax Day”) together.”
If you are serious about the restoration of liberty and the rule of law in our lifetime, please forward this email to everyone you know!
-
Obama signs debt bill into law
<http://www.politico….0811/60503.html>
From whom or what does TREASURY seek to BORROW? And which TREASURY
are we talkin about?
Presumptively TREASURY mean the TREASURY of US Inc. Why is US Inc. BORROWING from ANOTHER CORPORATE ENTITY when it can MANUFACTURE WHAT IT NEEDS by the AUTHORITY VESTED IN IT BY IT’S
CORPORATE CHARTER? LADIES & GENTLEMEN, US Inc. can PAY, NOT DEFER PAYMENT, BUT PAY it’s DEBT, there was NEVER ANY NEED FOR THEM TO SPEND ALL THE MONEY AND TIME THEY HAVE ON THIS BS. THEY’RE PUNKIN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE INTO DEBT SLAVERY! U
Quote:U.S. Constitution
Article 1, Section 8
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,
Yer kidding me right?! WHAT ABOUT THIS DON’T PEOPLE “GET” OR UNDERSTAND? THIS IS THE “ESCAPE CLAUSE” AND THEY IGNORED IT PREFERRING TO PUSH NONWEALTHY PEOPLE FURTHER INTO DEBT AND
STARVATION.
NO ONE OTHER THAN RON PAUL HAS DISCUSSED THIS IN PUBLIC. That stated, SEE! IT’S PERFECTLY LEGAL FOR US Inc. TO MAKE MONEY! YEAH, they can BORROW, but why BORROW and become a DEBTOR when you can
MANUFACTURE and be NOTHING MORE THAN A FACILITATOR? IF US Inc is AUTHORIZED to COIN MONEY then WHY AREN’T THE SERVANTS, OTHER THAN RON PAUL EVEN DISCUSSING THE OPTION, IN
PUBLIC??????????????????????????????????????
A little overlooked fact about the DEBTOR part. YOUR SERVANTS MADE YOU THE DEBTOR AND NOW YOU AND YOURS GOTTA PICK UP THE TAB.
U.S. Capitol Switchboard
202 – 224 – 3121
BE A GOOD PRO-ACTIVE CAPITALIST! DEMONSTRATE TO YOUR SERVANT’S THAT YOU UNDERSTAND “MARKET FORCES”!
DEMAND
DEMAND IS A “MARKET FORCE”! SUPPLY & DEMAND! DEMAND THAT YOUR SERVANTS EXERCISE THE LEGAL AUTHORIZED OPTION AND STOP LYING TO YOU AND DRIVING YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS INTO USURY DEBT. YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS ARE LIABLE FOR WHAT YOUR SERVANTS DO!!!
Quote:CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, 1849
Art. 1
Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.
TELL YOUR SERVANTS WHAT TO DO. THEY WANTED TO TAKE DIRECTION FROM A SUPERIOR, YOU’RE THE ULTIMATE SUPERIOR IN THE EQUATION! CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §54950 DECLARATION OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created”.
So often times it happens That we live our lives in chains And we never even know we have the key “Already Gone”, Eagles
However, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE! WE ARE REQUIRED TO KNOW THE LAW RE US Inc COINING MONEY.
CONTROL YOUR SERVANTS OR THEY’LL CONTINUE TO CONTROL YOU
U.S. Capitol Switchboard
202 – 224 – 3121
– DEMAND –
THE GOVERNMENT BELONGS TO YOU, NOT THE SERVANTS!
-
LaRouche: Jail Bernanke, Geithner And Obama Now For Massive Theft And Loan Fraud
July 26, 2011 • 3:56PM
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18909
Lyndon LaRouche today called for the immediate jailing of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and President Barack Obama for their role in a massive theft of taxpayers money, in the 2008 bailout of Wall Street and London, and the ongoing pledge to continue the bailout of the hopelessly bankrupt European Monetary Union and Wall Street.
LaRouche made the demand after reviewing the July 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of the Federal Reserve, which is the first installment of a larger audit to be completed by October of this year. The preliminary audit revealed a trail of criminal action on the part of Bernanke and Geithner. In March 2008, Fed Chairman Bernanke fraudulently invoked an emergency clause in the Federal Reserve Act, claiming that on the basis of “unusual and exigent circumstances,” the Fed could issue emergency loans to nondepository institutions for the first time since the Great Depression. As the result, the Fed issued more than $16 trillion in emergency loans to Wall Street and foreign banks. Furthermore, most of the fraudulent “emergency lending” was outsourced to private contractors, led by JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo, in no-bid contracts that totalled $660 million in fees. Numerous officials of the Fed and the outside contractors were given blanket waivers, allowing them to act despite clear conflicts of interest. The Fed audit cited the case of William Dudley, a former chief economist of Goldman Sachs, who is now the Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, who was given a conflict-of-interest waiver to retain his stocks in AIG and General Electric at a time when he was authorizing hundreds of billions of dollars in fraudulent “emergency” loans to these firms. In another example of the rampant conflict of interest, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase was allowed to remain on the board of directors of the New York Federal Reserve Bank while his firm received $390 billion in loans, and functioned as a major clearinghouse for the entire Federal Reserve emergency loan program.
The GAO audit was conducted under an amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill that was introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), over strenuous objections.
Lyndon LaRouche today demanded that Bernanke, Geithner and President Obama be immediately sent to prison for their role in this fraudulent theft of taxpayer’s money. “There never was an emergency warranting $16 trillion in bailout to Wall Street and foreign banks,” LaRouche declared. “There was always an alternative, which I spelled out clearly in my 2007 Homeowners and Bank Protection Act (HBPA), an alternative thoroughly in keeping with the U.S. Constitution. I called for the immediate reinstatement of the Glass Steagall Act and a freeze on all home foreclosures for the duration of the bankruptcy reorganization of the entire Federal Reserve System. It was a high crime to bail out Wall Street and London’s gambling debts, and Bernanke’s declaration of emergency, unleashing $16 trillion in Fed funds to bailout gambling debts that can never be paid, was a criminal fraud. President Obama has furthered that criminal fraud, by pledging that the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury would be the lenders of last resort for the European Monetary Union. The President made that illegal promise as recently as last week, during a telephone conversation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.”
LaRouche concluded: “There is only one appropriate course of action. Send Bernanke, Geithner and Obama to prison right now. The idea that the American people should be held responsible for bailing out tens of trillions of dollars in fraudulent, worthless, unpayable debt, is unforgivable, and must be punished by criminal prosecution and hard jail time. Public officials elected or appointed to high office in our Federal government must be held accountable for their crimes, or else our entire Constitutional system is worthless. I know the American people are with me, and that there can be no delay. The GAO is the official investigative arm of the U.S. Congress.. They have provided their findings in a 239 page audit report. The facts speak for themselves.”
-
Not Natural Born — TRUTH MATTERS
http://www.youtube.c…h?v=MwhKuunp8D8
-
EDITORIAL: Here’s another article on the same subject.
_________________
Yesterday’s video dealt with the groundbreaking US Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed state and individual sovereignty. This was a reversal, not only of lower court rulings, but also of the direction and tone of the Federal
Government going back a good while. The case itself (the individual) was not nearly as important as the fact that it ruled against legislated codes, calling them “null and void” when in opposition to Constitutional rights of
states and the people. That’s really BIG!
http://www.supremeco…pdf/09-1227.pdf
-
EDITORIAL: Another Update from Lindsey in jail
_________________________
Here’s another update from Dad, this time addressing the federal government’s propensity to step on the “States’ toes,” overstepping it’s constitutionally defined bounds.
(I’ve received several requests for information or other clarification from Dad. I thank you for your patience, and I’ll respond when time allows.)
=====================================================
For many of you who have watched over the years the decisions by the Supreme Court split 5 to 4 or maybe even having plurality opinions where there was really nothing definitely said, the recent decision in Bond v. U.S., 564 U.S. ____ (2011) needs your humble attention. For those of you who know me this is like a term paper and the information will prove to be invaluable to you. Share it with whoever and if you know someone who is charged with a Federal Crime occurring within the external boundaries of any one of the 50 Union States, they and their attorney need to read this.
At issue is when the United States writes a law and a particular State enacts a law that prohibits the same conduct, is that type of legislation by either or both lawful or is there something wrong. The Supreme Court has said there is something wrong. The question is what is wrong and what is the remedy to fix it? The answer might surprise you.
In Bond, the Supreme Court quoted Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 758 (1999) which said “FREEDOM IS ENHANCED BY THE CREATION OF TWO GOVERNMENTS, NOT ONE.” “The principal of limited national powers and State SOVEREIGNTY are intertwined. While neither originates from the Tenth Amendment, both are expressed by it. Impermissible interference with State SOVEREIGNTY is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government.” Bond, Id. quoting New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 181 (1992).
National Government is a code phrase for “United States” in the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment reads:
“The Powers not delegated to the United States [National Government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States [sovereign], are reserved to the States respectively [meaning individually] or to the people.”
“The allocation of powers in our Federal system [meaning two governments not one] preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual SOVEREIGNTY of the States.” Bond, Id. “State SOVEREIGNTY is not just an end in itself; rather FEDERALISM secures to Citizens [of each State] the liberties that derive from the diffusion of SOVEREIGN power.” Bond, Id. quoting New York, 505 U.S. at 181.
The Supreme Court refers to “FEDERALISM” that it “protects the liberty of all persons WITHIN A STATE by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental powers [to the United States or National Government] CANNOT direct or control their actions.” Bond, Id. citing Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991).
“FEDERALISM protects the liberty of the INDIVIDUAL [Person or Citizen of the State] from arbitrary power.” Bond. Id. To be arbitrary means without authority. “States [in the Tenth Amendment sence] are not the sole intended beneficiaries of FEDERALISM.” Bond, Id. “[a]litigant [may]…challenge a law as enacted in contravention of constitutional principals of FEDERALISM.” Bond, Id. “[a]ction that exceeds the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT’S enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States [like the State you live in]. Bond, Id. citing U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
The Supreme Court directed all District Courts that the:
“Ultimate issue of the Statutes validity turns on whether the law [Federal] can be deemed necessary and proper for carrying into execution…[one of the National Government’s enumerated powers].” Bond, supra
Although in Bond,the statute at issue was Title 18, Section 229, which the State of Pennsylvania [called Commonwealth][a word we need know more about] a much better comparison, and one almost identical to Section 229, is Title 21, Section 841(a) which reads as follows:
“It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly and intentionally (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispose or possess, with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.”
Yes, I know Section 229 deals with chemical weapons under a treaty with foreign governments and it is for this reason I compare committing a violation of the United States Drug laws [Section 841 or conspiracy to violate 841(a) which is section 846].
Every State prohibits controlled substances, be it use or selling, and I will use the State of Texas for example and illustration only. The term “of” means “belongs to.” In Texas Health and Safety Code, Section 481.11, the State of Texas prohibits possession or selling (distribute) controlled substances like cocaine, meth, and marijuana.
“An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that UPSET the Constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable.” Bond, Supra “The unconstitutional action can cause concomitant injury in INDIVIDUAL cases.” Bond, Id.
The Courts are prohibited from disregarding “the Federal structure of our Government
.” Bond, Id. “An offense created by [an unconstitutional law] the Supreme Court has HELD “IS NOT A CRIME.” Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376 (1880). “If a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States.” New York, 505 U.S. at 156.“f a power is an attribute of State SOVEREIGNTY reserved by the Tenth Amendment, it is necessarily a power the Constitution has not conferred on Congress.” New York, Id., citing U.S. v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 643, 649 (1961); Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 102 (1946); Oklahome ex rel., Phillips v. Guy F. Atkinson Co. 313 U.S. 508, 534 91941). The Tenth Amendment “states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.” U.S. v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).
“[w]hat is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the State authorities.” New York, 505 U.S. at 156 “The question is not what power the federal government [National] ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the people [people is referenced in the Tenth Amendment at the end].” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 63 (1936)
In the Legal Tender Case, 110 U.S. 421, 449, 450 (1884) the Supreme Court explained that Congress was given power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1937) the Supreme Court explained a rule relating to offenses that prohibit the same conduct stating:
“The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of TWO distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied [by the Court] to determine whether there are two offenses, OR ONLY ONE, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.”
In my example herein, to distinguish a violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 841(a) from Texas Health and Safety Code Section 481.11, there must be some “additional fact” required to be proven in the Section 841 Federal violation that is not required in Section 481.11 in the State of Texas. Both prohibit controlled substances. As shown above, Section 841(a) does not contain any distinguishable element of fact.
When Congress intends to limit Congressional reach of the Commerce power under Article I, Section 8, Cl. 3 [to which all Federal Crimes derive], the language of the statute contains the element of that conduct being “in interstate commerce.” See Circuit City Stores Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 115, 116 (2001)
When Congress intends to use its “full Commerce Clause Power” it uses within its choice of statutory language the phrase “affecting commerce” as an additional fact need to be proven. See Russell v. U.S. 471 U.S. 858, 859 (1985). Section 841(a) contains no interstate nexus that would distinguish a violation of the State of Texas’ Section 481.11. In short, there is no mention of “in interstate commerce” or “affecting commerce” in Congress’ Section 841(a). No Federal conviction is premised upon any such additional finding by any jury.
Under our Federal System the “states possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.” Brecht v. Abrahmson, 507 U.S. 619, 635 (1993). “When Congress criminalizes conduct already denounced as criminal by the States [respectively meaning individually within each State boundaries], it affects a change in the sensitive relation between Federal and State Criminal jurisidiction.” U.S. v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 411-412 (1973); quoting U.S. v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349 (1971).
Congress was not enumerated with a “general police power of the sort retained by the States.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 567. “Before a man can be punished…under Federal Law his case must be plainly and unmistakably within the provision of some statute.” U.S. v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485 (1917) “Any doubt regarding the Constitutional role of the States as SOVEREIGN ENTITIES is removed by the Tenth Amendment….” Printz v. U.S. 521 U.S. 898, 919 (1997). The Constitution is to preserve “the States and the maintenance of their governments.” New York, 505 U.S. at 162
Each Union State retains most all their power after the adoption of the Constitution. Sturges v. Crownshield, 4 Wheat 122, 193 (1819). The fact 37 other States were adopted on an equal footing does not make the 37 treated any different. If one State has retained power from Congress then all States retained the same power. The “system is a dual SOVEREIGNTY.” Taffin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990).
The phrase ‘two governments, not one”, “dual SOVEREIGNTY”, “States retain substantial authority”, and that Section 841(a), like the statute at issue in Bond [which is 18 U.S.C. Section 229] does not contain any different element of proof from that of the State of Texas Law prohibiting controlled substances at Section 481.11, clearly demonstrates that Section 841(a), as applied to an individuals conduct within the external boundaries of the State of Texas [or any other State of the Union] VIOLATES THE TENTH AMENDMENT, AND AS APPLIED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Congress can prohibit controlled substances but the question is where. The answer is simply not within the geographical boundaries or borders of any State of the Union. Congress could prohibit Grand Juries or U.S. Attorneys or Federal Judges from dispensing controlled substances [or anyone for that matter] on Federal Land or its Territories sometimes referred to as “States” [26 U.S.C. 3121(e)] but not within the land reserved for regulation by any of the 50 Tenth Amendment States.
If Congress were to add an additional element that the controlled substances [commonly called drugs] were knowingly being possessed, distributed, dispensed or manufactures, in interstate commerce as an element for a Jury to decide, this element would probably satisfy the distinction between a State crime and Federal Crime dealing in controlled substances. But for those who for the past 41 years have been affected by Section 841(a) jubilee has arrived.
“A conviction under [such a law] is not MERELY ERRONEOUS, BUT IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND CANNOT BE A LEGAL CAUSE OF IMPRISONMENT.” Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. at 376 A law “beyond the power of Congress…is not law at all.” Nigro v. U.S. 276 U.S. 332, 341 (1928). Perhaps it is the Tenth Amendment that prevented Congress from defining “State” in the definition section [21 U.S.C. Section 802] of the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, which simply says “means a “State of the United States….” You will be hard pressed to find a more clear example of Congress intending to invade the Sovereignty of the States by this definition. I found a more practical approach is that the 50 Tenth Amendment States are not “States of the United States” under the Tenth Amendment’s “United States”, and that the States [now 50] are separate and distinct governments from that of the United States Government.
When Congress defines a word using the term “means” they are “excluding” “any meaning that is not stated.” Burgess v. U.S. 553 U.S 124, 128 (2008) “When an exclusive definition is intended the word ‘means’ is employed.” Burgess, Id.; citing Groman v. CIR, 302 U.S. 82, 86 (1937) Statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words…” Burgess, Id.; citing Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S 379, 392-93 (1979)
If any State can claim authority to prosecute a crime and deprive you of liberty involving controlled substances the cases above each show the United States is without authority to regulate wholly intrastate activity. It was clear before Bond and even more clear now. The Supreme Court was unanimous.
If a State conviction would render a third less time than a Federal conviction and in one of the 50 State you may do only 30% of the sentence in prision, coupled with a person being confined within their State of conviction, the recidivism rate would drop due to family involvement and most States would get the forfieture loot.
Well done Supreme Court
Lindsey Springer 7.22.11
=====================================================
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
-
Don44,
Thanks for the constructive suggestions. The form has been edited per your suggestions and reposted.
Please keep your excellent suggestions coming.
Admin 🙂
-
Bing,
Thanks! 🙂 And welcome back.
-
SOURCE: http://www.techeye.net/security/us-cops-addicted-to-facebook-data
_________
US cops addicted to Facebook data
Users never know
13 Jul 2011 10:15
by Nick Farrell in Rome
Read more: http://www.techeye.net/security/us-cops-addicted-to-facebook-data#ixzz1TE1yxMAJ
US coppers are getting warrants for detailed access to users' Facebook accounts without their knowledge.
According to Reuters, since 2008, federal judges have authorised at least two dozen warrants to search individuals' Facebook accounts to the FBI, DEA and ICE. The investigations range from arson to rape to terrorism.
Facebook gives the cops a detailed package of profile and photo information that is not even available to users themselves.
It looks like the cops are getting so addicted to the amount of useful data that they can get from these profiles that they are hitting the courts for more warrants. Federal agencies were granted at least 11 warrants to search Facebook since the beginning of 2011, double the number for all of 2010.
However, that figure may be much higher because some records are sealed.
Facebook's chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, told Reuters that Facebook was sensitive to user privacy and that it regularly pushes back against law-enforcement “fishing expeditions”.
But Reuters hacks found that none of the warrants discovered in the review have been challenged on the grounds that it violated a person's Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.
This is alarming constitutional-law experts who think this is because the defendants and their “friends” never knew about them.
Neither Facebook nor the government is obliged to inform a user when an account is subject to a search by law enforcement.
Twitter and several other social-media sites have formally adopted a policy to notify users when law enforcement asks to search their profile, and have been successful at challenging gag orders.
Facebook does not appear to be too keen about doing this. In two recent cases information was certainly not passed on. Last year, several weeks after police arrested four “satanists” for burning down a church in Pomeroy, Ohio, an FBI agent executed a search warrant on Facebook seeking data about two of the suspects. The defendant's lawyers were not told about the search.
In another case, the DEA searched the Facebook account of Nathan Kuemmerle, a Hollywood shrink who ran a “pill mill” for celebs.
At his bail hearing, a Redondo Beach police detective used comments Kuemmerle made on Facebook and in the site's popular game Mafia Wars to argue that he should be denied bail.
When Kuemmerle's lawyer, John Littrell, asked the detective his source, the copper muttered something about the fact that it was from “an undercover source”. Littrell told Reuters that neither he nor his client knew about the warrant.
-
SOURCE: http://www.techeye.net/hardware/ibm-watson-starts-thrilling-career-in-telesales
_________________
IBM Watson starts thrilling career in telesales
Faded star faces life in call centre
08 Jul 2011 10:25
by Matthew Finnegan in London
Read more: http://www.techeye.net/hardware/ibm-watson-starts-thrilling-career-in-telesales#ixzz1TE1BWW7z
Oh, how the mighty fall.
Not long after its glorious heyday as a daytime TV celebrity on US gameshow Jeopardy!, IBM’s Watson supercomputer is set for a life of drudgery as a cold-calling telesalesperson.
Like a faded rockstar forced back to a life of servitude after the hits dry up, Watson is now facing a life away from the glamour and the cameras.
According to Eweek, IBM has outlined some of the more practical uses for its machine.
IBM vice president and CIO Jeanette Horan reportedly said that the company wants to implement Watson internally, to take all of the information that is used by its sales team and “build a source of information”.
This will involve bringing together and manipulating a variety of information including customer and market info, pricing, and so on.
With the DeepQA technology and Power7 processors used by Watson, it is possible to have massive amounts of information stored and easily retrievable.
This could give telemarketers, salespeople and customer support staff easy access to a massive amount of information.
As Extremetech points out, this could potentially be done on a larger scale with the language processing technology able to understand human commands.
Watson is able to apply its language processing, reasoning and learning on its own, as shown in its star turn on Jeopardy!, so there is seemingly little stopping it from being rolled out for speaking to customers.
Indeed, it seems that IBM is intent on getting Watson to have a go at giving technical support for help desks, call centres and so on.
For anyone who has battled with a customer support person who refuses to veer from the information on their computer screen – or fielded questions from a cold caller about the ‘mobile service providings’ – it could be a welcome change.
And it could also open up some interesting questions about the outsourcing approach to call centres, offering a potentially even cheaper option.
Of course there are downsides to this plan, not least that it would be too expensive for many to think about buying up their own multi-million dollar supercomputer. And we're speculating like crazy anyway.
Just how responsive the public would be to being hounded by a machine to buy double-glazing is a slight concern.
We approached IBM for more information, but Watson has not called us back.
Read more: http://www.techeye.net/hardware/ibm-watson-starts-thrilling-career-in-telesales#ixzz1TE10peQG
-
Dear readers,
The list of law review articles in the previous post relating to the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine have been downloaded and posted to this site at the following directory:
http://famguardian.o…/UnconstCondit/
-
The status of the party opening the account UNDER FEDERAL LAW is described on the withholding paperwork they submit. Provided it is complete and accurate, there can be no surrender of sovereignty or sovereign immunity by opening an FDIC insured account. If they won't accept the correct withholding paperwork at the time the account is openened, then mail it to them after the fact using the following in order to generate legal evidence of your correct status (OFFSITE LINKS):
Certificate/Proof/Affidavit of Service, Form #01.002
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/General/CertificateOfSvc.zip
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The correct withholding paperwork is described in:
About IRS Form W-8BEN, Form #04.002
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Withholding/W-8BEN/AboutIRSFormW-8BEN.htm
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
-
EDITORIAL: Another update from Lindsey Springer, who is currently in jail.
__________________________________
Wisdom from Dad concerning the tax system and how we can change it:
=====================================================
No matter what your patterns of spiritual beliefs may be, it should be plain for most to see there are many parts of continued human resistance which both good people, and those who would choose to hurt others, have common interest in. Both good and bad are necessary to regulation, especially when they step away from home and enter the world of commerce.
The core reason or basis for why the people of the 50 States failed several generations after their founding fathers and mothers risked it all to create a limited national kingdom called the “United States” was to protect freedom at its core involving life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which refers to things like owning your own home free of regulation or taxation.
Today there are two types of taxes. The first is those you can see and are said to owe now, and the second is the taxes you will owe, or your children and grand children will owe. The First is clearly a tax you have a right to protest without fear of going to jail or losing your property. The problem with the protest to issues surrounding this tax you can see is now the Courts have decided refusal to address protests is a better form of due process than actually directing the United States Government to comply with Federal Law when applying other laws among the several States.
The Theory thus far is that it's ok for the limited United States Government to break the law, so long as enforcing their theory of the law (as it applies to the individual) is the ultimate goal. This area of contempt by the United States for their role in enforcing the law requires “we the people”–individually, if necessary–to call to account the Government and its violations of the phrase “due process” enshrined in the 5th Amendment. Due process is easily understood as “the process that is due to the individual” by the Government before life, liberty or property can be seized.
We as a nation seem so ready to loan money out to people in foreign land with no collateral, while forgiving the same debt, knowing full well at the time of the loan we would never see that money again. While at the same time, we put people in prison for 15 years (like me), or more, for whatever reason, failing to present an account of certain money received to the District Director over the Internal Revenue District of residence.
From where did this psychotic double-minded enforcement policy derive, you ask? I am not 100% sure, but I can tell you anything to do with taxes in the Federal Court system is “DONT TELL NO MATTER WHAT THEY ASK” (compare “don't ask, don't tell” with the current policy “do tell, please”)
The United States needs to do a full-scale jubilee and show an abundance of grace and mercy to the people of the 50 States who have floated this $14.3 trillion endeavor for the last 70+ years. If you are a type of tax-exempt organization, and you have an issue that may wind up in Federal Court (recently the IRS said hundreds of thousands of you have not complied with registration requirements), listen up.
In Peoples Source Int'd LLC v. U.S., 198 Fed. Appx 776, 779 (10th Cir. 2006) the Tenth Circuit refused to consider an exempt organization appeal because, “unless the party submits to the District Director of the District having jurisdiction over the dispute,” the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under 26 CFR 1.501(a)(1)(2011) the Secretary of the Treasury requires the exempt organization want-a-be to file “AN APPLICATION FORM AS SET FORTH BELOW WITH THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR FOR THE INTERNAL REVENUE DISTRICT IN WHICH IS LOCATED THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS OR PRINCIPAL OFFICE.”
In Peoples, the 10th Circuit found Peoples was barred from holding the IRS accountable for due process violations because the person in charge at Peoples sent the organization's letter to the “WRONG PLACE.” If you do not think the Judges are playing a “FORM over SUBSTANCE” game now is your chance to OPEN UP YOUR EYES. Peoples sent their claim letter to the IRS's Group Manager and Revenue Officer but not the “District Director” having jurisdiction. This decision was in 2006 for acts taking place in late 2005.
In U.S. v. Dawes, 161 Fed. Appx. 743, 745 (10th Cir. 2005) another panel of the 10th Circuit denied due process violation relief to Mr. Dawes because his claim the “Secretary must establish internal revenue districts” was not supported by any specific authority. Dawes was in 2005.
In 2006, the 10th Circuit in Goodman v. U.S., 185 Fed. Appx. 725, 728-29 (10th Cir. 2006) explained Goodman's suit was against an agent of the “District Director” regarding an assessment. While addressing this claim the 10th Circuit said:
“According to the government, the District IRS Form 4340 is an official document….”
What is a “District IRS Form”? Who was the District Director in 2005 to whom Peoples should have sent their exemption letter? What authority did Mr. Dawes need to identify in his case other than 26 U.S.C. Section 7621? Each one of these claims was centered around due process violations and all three were issued by the Tenth Circuit's knowing no District Director or Internal Revenue District existed.
On October 1, 2000, all Internal Revenue Districts and District Directors offices were closed down. Google David C. Williams, Inspector General, Treasury Inspector for Tax Administration, dated May 8, 2001. On September 16, 2004, the Secretary of the Treasury explained why he changed 26 CFR 1.6091-2 by removing the phrases “Internal Revenue District” and “District Director” because they “NO LONGER EXISTED.” On January, 2007, in Revenue Bulletin 2007-9, the Secretary of the Treasury again told Federal Judges and the rest of the world that the regulations corresponding to 26 U.S.C. Section 6325 and 6503(f) were modified stating:
“all reference to IRS district director or service center director as positions no longer exist.”
In August, 2009, published at 74 Fed. REg. 39003 and 39004, the Secretary of the Treasury explained it had changed the IRS structure from a “geographic structure to a structure based on NATIONWIDE JURISDICTION” (emphasis mine). Yet, save four regulation changes, the rest, including assessment and collection and tax exempt organization, have not been changed one word.
Why was Peoples denied relief for not sending a letter for exemption status to a place that “no longer exists”? How did a “District IRS” issue a Form 4340 in 2005, in Goodman, if no Internal Revenue District existed? Just google “26 CFR 301.6201” and read it for yourself. It says the District Director makes all determinations and assessments for the Secretary of the Treasury under the Secretary's authority. District Director is defined at 26 CFR 301.7701-10(2011) and does not provide delegation for any “delegate” like 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(11) and (12) provides or as the Secretary defines at 26 CFR 301.7701-9(2011).
Even if District Director could mean his delegate, without a District Director where would the delegation come from? What should really reach out and grab you is the National Health Care Plan that makes a crime out of failing to sign an insurance contract. This law will also be enforced through the Secretary of the Treasury through the hiring of 10,000 new agents.
Can you believe we are debating about raising the debt ceiling of the United States because $2.5 trillion is not enough to run government? With the shortage by years end to be greater than $1.3 trillion (yes combined almost $4 trillion to run the National limited enumerated power Government), instead of raising taxes, driving even more business out of the 50 States and their jobs with it, the United States has adopted a policy of forgiving nothing of the American people who got it this far, while borrowing until it has reduced the value of your after-tax accumulated property to almost nothing.
When demand goes down, value goes down. When inflation goes up, it costs more to buy the same item or property. The value in the “dollar” is what confidence people who accept it, have in it. In other words, the value is what it can buy. If it takes $4 trillion to run the limited national government, then the dollar must have very little value currently. Congress needs $4 trillion to circulate to pay off all the agreements they entered into. Ross Perot said this day was coming in 1991, and nobody (and I mean nobody) would listen.
Yet, a lion's share of the Country wishes to borrow more, spend less, and build more prisons for those who civilly dissent. The debt is a way around a tax increase and becomes a reason to raise taxes on future generations. Instead of saying we pay these taxes for all the Government services provided to us, they will be saying we pay these taxes for all the Government services we gave out 40 years ago.
What happened to the idea of no taxation without representation? Every future generation will be able to defeat a tax liability for collection that goes to paying the debt accruing before they were born. I have said all this to say there is an answer to the debt problem. LET MY PEOPLE GO. A Jubilee, not an effort to condem those who owe and cannot pay, disguised as amnesty. A real true jubilee.
If the United States wishes to be prosperous again, avoid the smere campaigns against American's pointing out the due process violations and just forgive it all. To he who gives grace and mercy, much grace and mercy is given. Without Jubilee, I am afraid even politicians will begin to suffer from the choices they have made at election time, which everyone sees looming around the corner.
Oh, and with Jubilee, bring forth a new tax system of laying and collecting when money is spent, leaving no chance for the current chaos ever to arise again. The structure is gone, and there's no way to save it. So come on Congress, go all the way, and do something that will finally turn this Country back to sanity.
The Supreme Court in Bond v. U.S. 564 U.S. ____ (decided June 16, 2011) has already said 9 to 0 that the United States cannot encroach upon the power reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment, and there is no nexus in the National Health Care Plan that requires an interstate element to prove a criminal violation. Because of Bond, the Health Care debate is over. For the Supreme Court to save it, they would need to reverse themselves in Bond. Being 9 to 0 that chance is not even debatable.
Change the system to collect taxes at the sales end, and if it is not coming in soon enough, borrow what you need to get by and offset or pay it back based upon the money that comes in. If enough does not come in, send a bill to every Government purportionately to collect the balance and adjust the % for the next year to cover the previous year. It is quite simple actually. And think, the United States survives another 100 years on that plan alone. Isn't that what everyone is fighting to accomplish: Save the United States? Stop messsing around and change the system and get some grace and mercy.
Lindsey Springer
=====================================================
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,