fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
HumanBeing,
And what is it that you wish to explain or illustrate by providing that definition? How is it relevant to this thread, because if it isn't it shouldn't clutter these forums. Don't assume the reader is a mind reader.
-
Those who want the Facebook subpoena guides direct from Facebook can visit the following link. This is the manual that Facebook gives to the police and law enforcement in how to obtain warrants:
Confidential Facebook Law Enforcement Subpoena Guides 2007-2010
http://publicintelligence.net/confidential-facebook-law-enforcement-subpoena-guides-2007-2010/
-
That video is presumptuous. The author does not present his evidence and is engaged in merely political discussion. What he says may be true, but its not a fact and should not be trusted or relied upon, especially in court, unless and until it is supported by evidence and citations of authority. These forums are not intended for political discussions, but legal argument with facts and law.
On a more positive note, it is very nice to FINALLY see new members visit here who aren't pushing the Fourteenth Amendment conspiracy theories that have no foundation. Glad you did your homework before visiting us. We are tired of arguing about this issue with presumptuous people who don't do their homework.
Welcome again to the forums.
-
Andy-Lee,
Now that's very interesting and useful information. Thanks for sharing that.
Welcome to our forums.
-
No. Read the bill for yourself:
-
EDITORIAL: Another Lindsey Springer update from jail.
________________
Here's the latest update from Dad (still incarcerated in Big Spring FCI):
=====================================================
I hope you each had an outstanding Father's Day. Just a short update on the status of things from my vantage point.
10-5055
Currently, all briefing is completed on several issues. The issues relate to Internal Revenue Districts, District Directors, where to deliver (or file) Tax Forms, whether a tax form is a tax return, what the bright line is (and what it means) when a criminal referral is made or institutional commitment from the IRS to no longer seek civil remedies, jurisdiction, the meaning of the term “gift”, “service” and “service's rendered”, and whether telling the Jury Form 1040 did not violate the PRA invaded the Sixth Amendment by denying me a Jury Trial, whether the Court forbidding me to call certain IRS persons to testify who investigated me or pursued me violated the Sixth Amendment, and whether no providing me an attorney violated the Sixth Amendment.
10-5156
Currently, this “2nd Criminal Appeal” styled by the Government seeks to void the Judgment due to the Sixth Amendment violations. Asserted here is that I should not be held on a void judgment pending ruling in 10-5055 becase the outcome is clear and “1st appeal” could take years. Government elected not to file any opposition brief in the 10th Circuit.
11-5053
Currently, this “3rd Criminal Appeal” is due to the October 15, 2010, decision by the 10th Circuit in 09-5088 which found on September 16, 2005, the 11 Special Agents were raiding my home with a search warrant as authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 7608(:cool:, and granting them each qualified immunity saying they did not know stealing money was unlawful at the time they stole it. The problem with this decision was the 3 months earlier on June 3, 2005, the Government Attorneys reported the “criminal institutional referral” to the U.S. Attorney was made which transferred all the Secretary of the Treasury's power to “enforce” Title 26 or “laws related to internal revenue” to the U.S. Attorney. This left the 11 Special Agents with no authority under Section 7608(:cool: on September 16, 2005. Because the Special Agents convinced the Grand Jury statements made by me to them were possibly misleading, and because the same Special Agents alleged Stilley's answers to the Grand Jury misled IRS Agents, I moved for a new trial. There is no way answers Stilley gave to on of Four Grand Juries ever could have affected the “IRS” and its collection of taxes. What taxes was the Grand Jury collecting? A Grand Jury stands between the accused and the Government, it does not become an arm of the Government. Special Agents are not Grand Jury Agents.
The 10th Circuit joined 11-5053 with 10-5156 and I recently moved to join 11-5053 with 10-5055. The 10th Circuit recently held in U.S. v. Payne, 10-5111, decided May 10, 2011, that Writ of Error Coram Nobis can be used when a person is in prison. They had told me on October 22, 2010, in 10-5101 that I could not use the Writ. Judge Friot said I could not use the writ because of U.S. v. Torres, ignoring U.S. v. Dawes. The Government moved to dismiss 10-5156 because of Torres. They even chose not to file an opposition brief in 10-5156 because of Torres. I recently filed a Rule 28(j) update to the 10th Circuit in 10-5156 and 11-5053 informing them I knew of Payne.
I am not certain what happens next but this is my latest update. I hope it finds you blessed and thank you for paying attention to these cases. I hope the Lord Jesus Christ continues to allow us all to see and hear where many are blind and deaf.
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,
Landon Springer
-
What the de factos have done is make everyone into the equivalent of a “corporation sole”. The public office and the public officer together are the corporation sole participating in the franchise. Uncle owns the office and, indirectly, the officer through the mechanism of the franchise.
The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the consequences of doing this as follows:
Quote:But if the plain dictates of our senses be relied on, what state of facts have we exhibited here? 898*898 Making a person, makes a case; and thus, a government which cannot exercise jurisdiction unless an alien or citizen of another State be a party, makes a party which is neither alien nor citizen, and then claims jurisdiction because it has made a case. If this be true, why not make every citizen a corporation sole, and thus bring them all into the Courts of the United States quo minus? Nay, it is still worse, for there is not only an evasion of the constitution implied in this doctrine, but a positive power to violate it. Suppose every individual of this corporation were citizens of Ohio, or, as applicable to the other case, were citizens of Georgia, the United States could not give any one of them, individually, the right to sue a citizen of the same State in the Courts of the United States; then, on what principle could that right be communicated to them in a body? But the question is equally unanswerable, if any single member of the corporation is of the same State with the defendant, as has been repeatedly adjudged.[Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)
SOURCE: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15428760256043512250]
Notice:
1. The use of the phrase “make the person” and “corporation sole”. Participating in franchises is what “makes the person”, meaning the “taxpayer”, “driver”, etc.
2. They identify this DEVIOUS tactic as “an evasion of the constitution”.
The “U.S. citizen” on the SS-5 form, as well as the “citizen of the United States” in the Cook case is:
1. A statutory status under a statutory franchise.
2. A public office in the U.S. government.
3. A corporation sole.
4. An “evasion of the constitution” per Osborn v. Bank of the United States.
5. An illegal attempt to establish federal franchises in a constitutional state of the Union:
Quote:“Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize [e.g. LICENSE, using a Social Security Number] a trade or business [per 26 USC 7701(a)(26)] within a State in order to tax it.”
[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]
Notice that THE VERY THING they can't establish is the ONLY subject of the current income tax. The best place to hide the truth is right in front of your face using a foreign language called “words of art”. I.R.C. Subtitles A and C are a franchise/excise tax upon an activity called a “trade or business”. Notice also that COOK was NOT in a state of the Union in the Cook Case, which is why they did it to him but CAN'T do it in a constitutional state: Because the Constitution doesn't and can't protect Americans while abroad. EVERYTHING done abroad is not only a franchise, but also beyond the protections of the Constitution and may be “protected” ONLY by statutory franchises.
-
America is becoming the Home of the Slave
July 4th is a joke because slavery is no laughing matter. Americans are going to jail and being lawyered to death. One in 250 people in this country are lawyers and they all need to make a living. The contest is between the God’s law, the Ten Commandments, and man’s law, a billion codes and statutes; between the rule of law and rule by law; between limited law (God’s order) and maximum, unlimited law (man’s order).
America has more laws than any other nation in the world and has more people in prison than all the nations combined. Over 7.2 million persons were on probation or parole or incarcerated in jail or prison at yearend 2006. “About 3.2% of the U.S. adult population, or 1 in every 31 adults, were incarcerated or on probation or parole at yearend 2006.” American prisons and jails held 2,304,115 inmates in 2008. Approximately one in every 18 men in the United States is behind bars or being monitored. The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 738 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 (as of 2005). The United States has 5% of the world's population and 23.6% of the world's prison population (Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006. By Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of Justice; U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics; U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. pp. 13. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p05.pdf.; Walmsley, Roy (2009). “World Prison Population List. 8th edition” (PDF). International Centre for Prison Studies. School of Law, King's College London. http://nicic.org/Library/022140.).
Number of inmates. 1920 to 2006.
The state has learned to profit from crime; that is, to turn America’s judicial system into for-profit corporations. Private run prisons are Big Business quadrupling its prison population and profits in three decades. Since America has more people in prison, close to 1 out of 7 people will be in prison in their life time, we must conclude that either Americans are the most corrupt people on earth or its government is corrupt and the most repressive in history. We can no longer say America is no longer the land of the free. It is the home of the slave.
Brooks
-
Neo,
1. Cook didn't identify the context: Statutory v. Constitutional. Chances are, he didn't even know the two contexts. That legal ignorance is PRECISELY the reason the Court wanted to hear his case: So they could abuse his ignorance to further dubious political motives without his objection or even knowledge. And it WORKED. The case was probably what we call a “set-up” for that very reason. Cook was probably on the government payroll hired when Former President Taft took office as a U.S. Supreme Court justice in 1921.
2. Taft/the court self servingly PRESUMED the statutory context to further their political motive to make the new Sixteenth Amendment tax INTERNATIONAL in scope.
3. No Cook could NOT have entered the action as an American National RATHER than a STATUTORY citizen for injuries sustained abroad. It would have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because:
3.1 Statutory civil U.S. law can't and doesn't apply abroad to a “stateless person” not domiciled on federal/statutory territory.
3.2 The Constitution would have been the ONLY remedy for such an injury, if ANYTHING could be a remedy.
3.3 The Constitution doesn't apply abroad and attaches ONLY to Union state land.
3.4 The common law requires jurisdiction over either the PERSON by virtue of physical presence on the land or the property must be on the protected land. Neither was the case with Cook. Hence, the common law didn't apply EITHER.
Cook did the only thing he could have done to get the case in front of the court WITHOUT it getting dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, which was declare himself FALSELY to be a statutory citizen and pray to get a remedy. He was a nonresident alien and even in today's I.R.C., he wasn't allowed to declare himself a statutory “U.S. citizen” or “U.S. person” unless he was married to someone who was and he wasn't. 26 USC 6013(g) and (h). All that getting in front of the corrupt Taft Court (U.S. Supreme Court) did was hurt him and in no way protect or help him. If you are injured abroad by terrorist Uncle Sam, there is no remedy except in the FOREIGN court. But he didn't petition the foreign court. So he was SCREWED from the beginning, and the only result was a political ruling that made a formerly national tax into a WORLDWIDE TERRORIST SCAM.
You NEED to read the two documents pointed to in my last post to see the WHOLE picture. If you had, you wouldn't have asked the question you asked. This is the second time we asked you to read those two documents. How many times do we have to ask?
The supreme court of THIEVES explained why a foreign domiciled CONSTITUTIONAL but not STATUTORY citizen can't either sue or be sued in a federal court:
Quote:At oral argument before a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Easterbrook inquired as to the statutory basis for diversity jurisdiction, an issue which had not been previously raised either by counsel or by the District Court Judge. In its complaint, Newman-Green had invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3), which confers jurisdiction in the District Court when a citizen of one State sues both aliens and citizens of a State (or States) different from the plaintiff's. In order to be a citizen of a State within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a [STATUTORY] citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the [STATUTORY] State. See Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648-649 (1878); Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115 (1834). The problem in this case is that Bettison, although a United States citizen, has no domicile in any State. He is therefore “stateless” for purposes of § 1332(a)(3). Subsection 1332(a)(2), which confers jurisdiction in the District Court when a citizen of a State sues aliens only, also could not be satisfied because Bettison is a United States citizen. [490 U.S. 829]When a plaintiff sues more than one defendant in a diversity action, the plaintiff must meet the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant or face dismissal. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806).{1} Here, Bettison's “stateless” status destroyed complete diversity under § 1332(a)(3), and his United States citizenship destroyed complete diversity under § 1332(a)(2). Instead of dismissing the case, however, the Court of Appeals panel granted Newman-Green's motion, which it had invited, to amend the complaint to drop Bettison as a party, thereby producing complete diversity under § 1332(a)(2). 832 F.2d 417 (1987). The panel, in an opinion by Judge Easterbrook, relied both on 28 U.S.C. § 1653 and on Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as sources of its authority to grant this motion. The panel noted that, because the guarantors are jointly and severally liable, Bettison is not an indispensable party, and dismissing him would not prejudice the remaining guarantors. 832 F.2d at 420, citing Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 19(:cool:. The panel then proceeded to the merits of the case, ruling in Newman-Green's favor in large part, but remanding to allow the District Court to quantify damages and to resolve certain minor issues.{2}
[Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)]
Bettison in the above case was referred to as “stateless” because he didn't have a domicile in a statutory state, meaning a federal territory. Hence, they ruled he had to be excused as a co-defendant in order for STATUTORY diversity of citizenship to work. Hence, the whole case had to be thrown out for lack of jurisdiction. Bettison was domiciled in Venezuela at the time and, like Cook, was a CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen of the United States” but NOT a STATUTORY “citizen of the United States”. The other co-defendants were statutory citizens but since he wasn't, the court couldn't reach him and he had sovereign immunity.
For someone not domiciled on federal territory, or in a constitutional state, every dispute in federal court is a political question beyond the jurisdiction of the court unless it involves a foreign government. Hence, IRS enforcement against Americans domiciled abroad who correctly declare their status as “nonresident alien NON-individuals” is an act of international terrorism against people who have no legal remedy. Permission to engage in such acts of international terrorism were sanctioned and encouraged by the Taft ruling in Cook v. Tait.
Here is how the SAME U.S. Supreme Court a few years earlier described this type of INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM. The fact that Taft didn't even mention this or explain how it related to the Cook Case was deliberate, because if he had, he would have had to admit he was an international terrorist for making the ruling that he did:
Quote:“The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized government, is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the taxpayer in the protection of his person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which he shares — such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements, and schools for the education of his children. If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxed, and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another state [OR NATION, AS IN THE CASE OF COOK], to which it may be said to owe an allegiance, and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property within the domicil of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court to be beyond the power of the legislature, and a taking of property without due process of law. Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262; State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Tappan v. Merchants' National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358. In Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, it was held, after full consideration, that the taking of private property [199 U.S. 203] without compensation was a denial of due process within the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417; Mt. Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Mass. 509, 519.”[Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905)]
Notice the same use of the word “benefit” in the Cook case as in the Union Refrigerator case. The use of that word in conjunction with the status it attached to, being statutory “U.S. citizen”, is an admission that a statutory “protection franchise” was involved founded on contract. And CONTRACT is the ONLY way they can reach outside their territory via civil law to get to a foreign domiciled party such as Cook:
Quote: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.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm%5D
Notice also the criteria the U.S. Supreme Court established for distinguishing a “tax” from an “extortion”/TERRORISM. ALL the following must exist BEFORE it is a “tax” RATHER than an “extortion” or terrorism:
1. Party must have a domicile in the federal zone.
2. Party owes and HAS allegiance ONLY to the national government and NOT any other Constitutional state or foreign government.
3. Party WANTS and ASKS for protection from the government. In the Cook case, this criteria was fulfilled by Cook FALSELY identifying himself as a statutory “U.S. citizen”.
Cook didn't meet this criteria, which is why the Supreme Court didn't want to discuss this case: Because by the standards of the SAME court, what they were doing was an EXTORTION rather than a “tax”.
An example of the terrorist context in the Cook case would be: Cook should have claimed that the services of the government not only did NOT “benefit” him, but injured him, and that the ONLY “services” he wanted was the right to be left alone BY THEM and NO ONE ELSE, which they of course couldn't charge or tax for. If that is what he had asked for, the outcome of the case would have been VERY different.
The “benefit” attaches to the use of the statutory U.S. citizen status. That is why it is a crime to invoke the status (18 USC 911) and why the status ACTS as a DE FACTO license to act as a public officer in receipt of government “benefits”. And the benefit one procures is the right to be let alone by international terrorists. Remember that a license is permission from the state to do that which is otherwise illegal. It is illegal for a PRIVATE person to impersonate a public officer or avail themselves of the “benefits” of the office, because that's stealing. So they made it a crime, licensed it, and then placed an excise tax upon a “trade or business” in order to regulate it.
The question is not whether the government has a right to charge for it's PROTECTION or BENEFIT, but rather:
1. Who defines what a “benefit” is? If YOU are the customer of their protection, only you should be able to define what they offer as a “benefit”, NOT a judge.
2. Do you have a right NOT to be “protected” or receive a “benefit”?
3. Do they protect you from THEIR OWN ABUSES such as the IRS abuse that Cook suffered (while domiciled abroad in Mexico) that caused the suit. If the de facto government won't protect you from its OWN abuses, they don't deserve to be subsidized with PROTECTION MONEY called “taxes” to protect you from anyone else.
4. Do their forms RECOGNIZE and PROTECT people who are not CUSTOMERS of their “PROTECTION RACKET” or their “BENEFITS”? If they don't, we have a case of THEFT. A compelled “benefit” and the public rights that attach to it which are not VOLUNTARILY requested and ACCEPTED is merely THEFT disguised to LOOK like “benevolence”.
TAFT was a THIEF enforcing what HIS OWN COURT earlier identified as “an extortion” and terrorism (see Union Refrigerator) by refusing to recognize the requirement for consent to BE or to LAWFULLY accept the obligations of statutory “U.S. citizen” status in the Cook case. Even if Cook did in fact WANT to participate in the civil protection franchise, he couldn't with a foreign domicile in Mexico, so they had to resort to PRIVATE law and let him illegally invoke the status of statutory “U.S. citizen” to hear his case.
If, in fact, the Constitution gives Americans “the right to be left alone”, then they can't make that right into a privilege and charge for it. Nor can they COMPEL You to either accept or pay for ANY so-called “benefit” or PROTECTION, and especially if you regard it as HARMFUL and NOT “BENEFICIAL”:
Quote:“The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]
-
Why are we being conditioned to accept “Czars”? Its a Russian word, and by its nature un-american.
Here is a list I received from a friend, with brief descriptions of each.
“It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”
/~ Mark Twain /
Do you know who your Czar is? Sadly …
*Stunning…… *
*There are very few of us who know just what all the CZAR's do up in D.C…………….Here is their names and job descriptions…….should be educational to ALL AMERICANS…………no matter what your political agenda…….if you resent this list, then get angry at the one who put these characters on the payroll. And not at the one who mailed it…… *
*OBAMA'S “CZARS”– Read who they are and realize _what they want to do_.*
Richard Holbrooke
AfghanistanCzar
Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov. Of New Mexico.* Pro Abortion and legal drug use*.Dissolve the 2nd Amendment
Ed Montgomery
Auto recovery Czar
Black radical anti business activist. Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks. Univ of Maryland Business School Deanteaches US business has caused world poverty. ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.
Jeffrey Crowley** **
AIDS Czar
Radical Homosexual.. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and especially, a Special Status for homosexuals only, including *complete free health care for gays.*
Alan Bersin **
Border Czar
The former failed superintendent of San Diego . Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton. *Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno – to keep borders open to illegals**without interference from US*
David J. Hayes **
California Water Czar
Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, “Progress Policy”. *No training or experience in water management whatsoever.*
Ron Bloom
Car Czar
Auto Union worker.*Anti business & anti nuclear*. Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business. *Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto Union owned.* How did this happen?
Dennis Ross
Central Region Czar
Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars. Obama apologist to the world. Anti gun and completely pro abortion .
Lynn Rosenthal**
Domestic Violence Czar
Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Vicious anti male feminist. *Supported male castration*.Imagine?
Gil Kerlikowske
Drug Czar
devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal, Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle. *Believes no American should own a firearm.* Supports legalization of all drugs
Paul Volcker
E conomic*Czar*
Head of Fed Reserve under Jimmy Carter when US economy nearly failed. Obama appointed head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board which engineered the Obama economic disaster to US economy. Member of anti business “Progressive Policy” organization
Carol Brower
Energy and Environment Czar
Political Radical Former head of EPA – known for anti-business activism. *Strong anti-gun ownership.*
Joshua DuBois**
Faith Based Czar
Political Black activist-*Degree in Black Nationalism. Anti gun ownership* lobbyist.*WHAT THE HELL DOES A FAITH BASED CZAR DO???????????*
Cameron Davis
Great LakesCzar
*Chicago radical* anti business environmentalist . */Blames George Bush for “Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink.” /*No experience or training in water management. Former ACORN Board member (what does that tell us?)
Van Jones**
Green Jobs Czar
(since resigned).. Black activist *Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party* who said Geo Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes. Black activist with strong anti-white views.
Daniel Fried
Guantanamo Closure Czar
*Human Rights activist for Foreign Terrorists*. Believes America has caused the war on terrorism. Believes terrorists have rights above and beyond Americans.
Nancy-Ann DeParle.
Health Czar
Former head of Medicare / Medicaid. Strong Health Care Rationing proponent. She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.
Vivek Kundra
Information Czar
Born in New Delhi , India . Controls all public information, including labels and news releases. *Monitors all private Internet emails*. (hello?)
Todd Stern
International Climate Czar
Anti business former White House chief of Staff- Strong supportrer of the Kyoto Accord. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade. Blames US business for Global warming. Anti- US business prosperity.
Dennis Blair
Intelligence Czar
Ret. Navy. Stopped US guided missile program as “provocative”. Chair of ultra liberal “Council on Foreign Relations” which blames American organizations for regional wars.
George Mitchell**
Mideast Peace Czar
Fmr. Sen from Maine Left wing radical. Has said Israel should be split up into “2 or 3 ” smaller more manageable plots”. (God forbid) A true Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual “special rights” advocate
Kenneth Feinberg
Pay Czar
*_Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY_**. Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs.** (horribly true)*
Cass Sunstein
Regulatory Czar
Liberal activist judge believes *free speech needs to be limited for the “common good”.* Essentially against 1st amendment. Rules against personal freedoms many times -like private gun ownership and right to
free speech.*This guy has to be run out of Washington !!*
John Holdren
Science Czar
Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist. *Claims US business has caused world poverty*. *No Science training.*
Earl Devaney
Stimulus Accountability Czar
Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. *Believes in Open Borders to Mexico . Author of statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico ..*
J. Scott Gration
Sudan Czar
Native of Democratic Republic of Congo . Believes US does little to help Third World countries. Council of foreign relations, *asking for higher US taxes to support United Nations*
Herb Allison
TARP Czar
Fannie Mae CEO *responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market**. Caused millions of people to lose their life savings.*
John Brennan
Terrorism Czar
*Anti CIA activist*. No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs. * Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military** A TOTAL MORON !!!!!*
Aneesh Chopra
Technology Czar
*_No Technology training._* Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti doctor activist. Supports Obama Health care Rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Gov. health care plan
Adolfo Carrion Jr..
Urban Affairs Czar
Puerto Rican born Anti American activist and leftist group member in Latin America . Millionaire “slum lord” of the Bronx , NY. Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from “sweetheart” deals with labor unions. *_Wants higher taxes on middle class to pay for minority housing and health care_*
Ashton Carter
Weapons Czar
Leftist. *Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America .. No Other “policy”*
Gary Samore
WMD Policy Czar
*Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith. Has no other “policy”.*
**************
How lucky are we that these are the people who are helping President Obama in the RUNNING of our country and the White House?*
-
Cook was liable even without a US domicile because he invoked a franchise status by calling himself a “citizen of the United States” even though he technically was NOT, since domiciled outside the US in Mexico. One of the “benefits” of the status was the right to petition the Supreme Court. If he had not invoked that status, he would not have had ANY remedy and they would have had to dismiss the case just as they did in the case of Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989).
What gives is that the the status you CONSENT to is an act of contracting that has nothing to do with your circumstances or your domicile. That's how de facto governments work:
1. Everything they do is by contract, and those who are CONTRACTORS have a status under their protection franchise.
2. They FORCE you to become a public officer to have ANY remedy at all, which means forcing you to choose either “individual” status as a nonresident alien (and pay higher tax), or consent to the lower granduated rate as a statutory “U.S. person”. That's the only choice they give you so its privilege indiced slavery.
3. Every other choice or status you could invoke is MALICIOUSLY interfered with or penalized.
4. Economics is the only factor determining what you choose, but they FORCE you to choose one and don't care what you call yourself as long as you bribe them to procure the office by one of the means they offer.
Read the analysis in the two pamphlets pointed to and you will understand what is going on:
1. Why you are a “national”, Section 4
http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf
2. Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018, Section 5
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The domicile cite you provided relates to state taxation. That is why they mentioned the Fourteenth Amendment. Cook v. Tait also mentioned state taxation indirectly by stating that it stops at the state borders and with peopel domiciled in the state. At the federal level, however, the FRANCHISE STATUS is the subject of the tax. Statutory citizens and residents at the federal level appears to be a franchise not related to domicile, and only those who claim the status and the “benefits” associated with it identified in Cook, are subject to the tax that relates to it. Those who don't claim the franchise “benefits” are nonresident NON-individuals and neither statutory “citizens”, “residents”, nor “individuals”.
-
BREAKING! SHOCKER! MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an “EMBARRASSMENT” to OBAMA!
-
Neo,
We agree that it needed to get out, regardless of the shape it was in. Let us not forget that the materials on this site took TEN YEARS to converge on what they are today. SEDM took 7 years. Nothing starts out perfect. Be patient with yourself and thank you for caring enough to even TRY. That's far more than most apathetic Americans ever even contemplate, who are PRISONERS of their own legal ignorance.
If you want to improve your Citizenship Diagrams, consider emulating the approach advocated in the comments, which are fully implemented in relation to the SAME subject in:
Ministry Introduction, Form #12.014
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Ministry/MinistryIntro.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
We didn't write the above, so please don't post questions or comments on the above document here. The above starts of with:
1. “Do you OWN your property?”
2. “Are you a U.S. citizen?”
3. “Do you live in the United States?”.
Happy DEPENDENCE day, plantation slave. LICK the hands that feed you while you celebrate your PRESUMED INDEPENDENCE using a flag made in COMMUNIST China by those who HATE America and what is stands for.
Quote:“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves [with their OWN ignorance and presumption].”[Dresden James]
-
Neo,
The answer is that:
1. The I.R.C. is a franchise (“trade or business”/public office franchise). The courts call this contract the “social compact”, which is a voluntary civil law franchise.
2. All franchises are contracts or agreements.
3. Only those who consent to the contract can be “citizens”, “residents”, or “individuals” subject to the tax. “Citizens”, “residents”, or “individuals” are public offices within the de facto government. Those who CONSENT establish a partnership between the OFFICE and themselves that creates the “PERSON” defined in 26 USC 6671(:cool: and 26 USC 7343.
4. Those who are NOT contractors are called “nonresident alien NON-individuals”.
5. By filing a 1040NR and indicating one is NOT an “individual” and NOT using a TIN, one is admitting that one is not a government contractor.
6. The term “United States” means THE GOVERNMENT sense. Domicile has nothing to do with it. That is EXACTLY the conclusion of President Taft in Cook v. Tait. READ THE frigging case.
Quote:26 CFR §301.7701-5 Domestic, foreign, resident, and nonresident persons.A domestic corporation is one organized or created in the United States, including only the States (and during the periods when not States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii), and the District of Columbia, or under the law of the United States or of any State or Territory. A foreign corporation is one which is not domestic. A domestic corporation is a resident corporation even though it does no business and owns no property in the United States. A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident foreign corporation, and a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident foreign corporation. A partnership engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident partnership, and a partnership not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident partnership. Whether a partnership is to be regarded as resident or nonresident is not determined by the nationality or residence of its members or by the place in which it was created or organized.
[Amended by T.D. 8813, Federal Register: February 2, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 21), Page 4967-4975]
Whenever you contract with the Beast, you become a de facto public officer and a virtual resident of the District of Criminals under duress. And if you whine about it, you get slapped silly and sent back hungry to your cage on the plantation.
Don't PRESUME that “citizen” or “resident” in the I.R.C. has anything to do with domicile. SCUMBAG former president Taft, who got the Sixteenth Amendment FRAUDULENTLY ratified as a lame duck President, said it DIDN'T in Cook v. Tait when he later became the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is covered in:
1. Why you are a “national”, Section 4
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyANational.pdf
2. Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018, Section 5
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
A DE FACTO government is one in which:
1. All law attaches to your right to contract and NOT to territory.
2. All “citizens”, “residents”, and “individuals” under the civil law are public officers and officers of a corporation.
3. The terms “citizens” and “residents” in the civil law are only used to create the false APPEARANCE of a lawful de jure government that in fact DOES NOT exist.
That is the kind of government we have. You know that. And the reg above PROVES it. The following ALSO proves it:
De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
George Carlin is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about who REALLY owns America. Public officer slaves have only EQUITABLE ownership after they pay their tribute to Caesar, who is the REAL, ABSOLUTE owner holding LEGAL rather than EQUITABLE title:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Scams/Articles/GeorgeCarlin-WhoControlsAmerica.wmv
The “rich cocksuckers who don't give a (censored) about you” that Carlin is talking about in the video are the international banksters who, through corporate fascism, compel EVERYONE to become a public officer before they can open a bank account as a “U.S. person” public officer.
When the Slave Surveillance Number, which is the license to represent a public office, is VOLUNTARILY associated with formerly PRIVATE property in order to procure the “BENEFITS” of the “trade or business” franchise then:
1. LEGAL title to the property is transferred to the grantor of the license.
2. The original PRIVATE owner relegates to EQUITABLE title and QUALITIFIED ownership instead of ABSOLUTE ownership.
3. PRIVATE PROPERTY is donated to a public use, public purpose, and public office.
Quote:“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,- 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations:[1] First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”;
[2] second, that if he devotes it to a public use [by ASSOCIATING it with a PUBLIC license number and PUBLIC activity], he gives to the public a right to control that use; and
[3] third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.”
[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]
See:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 10.2
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Franchises.pdf
REAL de jure government protects all EQUALLY. De facto governments only protect those who:
1. Contract with them and thereby surrender ALL their rights by accepting the uncompensated position of “public officer”/”citizen”/”resident”/”individual”
2. BRIBE de facto terrorists for the PRIVILEGE of doing so with “gifts” (31 USC 321(d)) called “taxes”.
3. Consent to commit the crime of bribery to procure an appointive public office. 18 USC 211.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000211—-000-.html
AND the only thing they protect you from are their own abuses. You're on your own with everyone else.
-
Neo,
Thanks for posting that. A similar document is posted on SEDM:
Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…NotEligible.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The definitions you cite are also posted on pp. 5-6 of the above document to show that state domiciled non-citizen nationals are not covered by the act.
Your analysis only looks at the citizenship and withholding issue. The above document looks at all issues that affect eligibility but concentrates less on withholding. Your document is probably more useful for the average joe than the one above.
It is also worth noting that even the IRS refers to people who are residents of Puerty Rico and the Virgin Islands as Nonresident aliens in Pub 515. Hence, even those domiciled in the places covered by the act are aliens. The ONLY real “citizens” are, in fact, public officers in the U.S. government because the corporation they work for is a citizen.
IRS Publication 515, 2006
http://famguardian.o…Pub515-2006.pdf
The analysis in the following further proves that statutory citizen is a voluntary franchise that has nothing to do with domicile, thus making the present government de facto rather than de jure:
Why You Are a “national”, Section 4
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
Here are some examples from Pub 515, where residents of Puerto Rico are treated as “nonresident aliens”:
Services performed outside the United States. Compensation paid to a nonresident alien (other than a resident of Puerto Rico, discussed later) for services performed outside the United States is no considered wages and is not subject to withholding.”
[IRS Pub 515, p. 23, 2006]
____________
“Bona Fide Residents of American Samoa or Puerto Rico
If you are a nonresident alien who is a bona fide resident of American Samoa or Puerto Rico for the entire tax year, you generally are taxed the same as resident aliens. You should file Form 1040 and report all income from sources both in and outside the United States. However, you can exclude the income discussed in the following paragraphs.
For tax purposes other than reporting income, however, you will be treated as a nonresident alien.
[. . .]
Residents of Puerto Rico.
If you are a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico for the entire tax year, you can exclude from gross income all income from sources in Puerto Rico (other than amounts for service performed as an employee of the United States or any of its agencies).
[. . .]
Residents of American Samoa.
If you are a bona fide resident of American Samoa for the entire year, you can exclude from gross income all income from sources in American Samoa (other than amounts for services performed as an employee of the U.S. government or any of its agencies).”
[IRS Publication 519, Year 2009, pp. 33-34]
Notice that:
1. You can be a RESIDENT of Puerty Rico or American Samoa and yet STILL be a NONRESIDENT ALIEN. Hence, “United States” does NOT include Puerto Rico or American Samoa and includes the “United States” in a GOVERNMENT SENSE.
2. You can be a RESIDENT of Puerto Rico or American Samoa but are STILL treated as an ALIEN. Hence, people born in American Samoa and Domiciled there are not “U.S. citizens” unless they work for the U.S. government by donating their identity to the government in signing up for franchises.
3. The only earnings subject to tax are earnings as a statutory “employee” of the U.S. government. Everything else is EXEMPT because it DOES NOT come from a “U.S. source”, meaning a GOVERNMENT source.
This is all covered in:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 7
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm