fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
The complete case file for the Credit River Decision is on FG at:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/CreditRiverFRNCase-20090302.pdf
See:
Money, Banking and Credit, Section 8.2
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/MoneyBanking.htm
-
TSA War on you and me…
http://www.prisonplanet.com/powerful-bi-partisan-caucus-prepares-to-fight-tsa.html/print/
and this,
Not Enjoying TSA Grope-Down is a Suspicious Activity
http://www.prisonplanet.com/not-enjoying-tsa-grope-down-is-a-suspicious-activity.html
and if all this is just too distressing, well fear no more as there is a remedy being proposed,
Liquid Medicine
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/05/22/052211-news-lithium-1-5/
Just have a drink and go back to sleep.
-
When you read these two articles keep in mind that 20,000 baby boomers PER DAY are retiring to go home and stay out of harm’s way, meaning they are avoiding at all costs any contact with a thug with a gun or a badge or a uniform. Meaning that there is no consuming in a consuming model economy. And, you aint seen nothing yet.
These retired people ARE NOT BEING REPLACED.
____________________________
SOURCE: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43236764
_____________
Wall Street Baffled by Slowing Economy, Low Yields: Trader
Published: Wednesday, 1 Jun 2011 | 11:06 AM ET
By: Margo D. Beller ;
Special to CNBC.com
Timothy A. Clary | AFP | Getty Images
Wall Street is having a hard time figuring out what to do now that the U.S. economy appears to be sputtering and yields are so low, Peter Yastrow, market strategist for Yastrow Origer, told CNBC.
“What we’ve got right now is almost near panic going on with money managers and people who are responsible for money,” he said. “They can not find a yield and you just don’t want to be putting your money into commodities or things that are punts that might work out or they might not depending on what happens with the economy.
“We need to find real yield and real returns on these assets. You see bad data, you see Treasurys rally, you see all bonds and all fixed-income rally and then the people who are betting against the U.S. economy start getting bearish on stocks. That’s a huge mistake.”
Stocks *extended losses* ; after the *manufacturing fell below expectations *in May and the *private sector added only 38,000 jobs * during the month.
“Interest rates are amazingly low and that, thanks to Ben Bernanke, is driving everything,” Yastrow said. “We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it.
“We have many, many homeowners that are totally underwater here and cannot get out from under. The technology frontier is limited right now. We definitely have an innovation slowdown and the economy’s gonna suffer.”
However, he said he wouldn’t sell stocks.
“Any bears out there better be careful because the dividend yields on these stocks look awesome relative to all the other investment vehicles out there,” Yastrow said. “So bears are going to have to find a new way to express their discontent with the U.S. economy.”
And this one: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43239586;
-
File the order in the county recorder's office with an abstract of judgment against the appropriate parties, and the injured party can get paid eventually. If not, file it as the same kind of “Notice of Lien” the IRS uses under the concept of equal protection and equal treatment. And include in the order an order to show cause directed against the defendant that he show cause why the IRS can do it and you can't if all “persons” are equal.
The only way you can become UNEQUAL is with your consent, and place the burden of proof on them to prove that you consented EXPLICITLY and in WRITING to be treated unequally. Direct the defendant that if he fails to produce evidence why you can't do the same thing as the government does, then you have his consent and blessing to do so under the concept of equal protection and equal treatment as described in:
Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf
-
If a refusal to hear the case or address ALL the issues raised results in a crime, the judge has vacated his office and becomes criminally culpable. If he refuses to appoint a successor without a criminal conflict of interest to hear the case (per 18 USC 208), then you as the only Sovereign participating in the proceeding have an undisputed right to find him in contempt and issue your own order to prevent the crime that would result. If you don't, then you become an accessory after the fact and co-conspirator to the crime pursuant to 18 USC 3 and 4, and hence are left with NO OPTION but to issue the proper order as a compelled fiduciary for the public officer who abandoned his post by refusing to rule. Such an order can be issued IN ADVANCE of the court rejecting the case, if need be, in an attachment with the compaint or order.
That is what Hansen did in the failed injunction case that attempted to shut down this website: Issue his own order and find the Ninth Circuit court of appeals in contempt. It worked in his case. He hasn't heard from them in 5 years.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/CaseStudies/CHansen/CHansen.htm
He issued his order and demanded that they remain silent on everything they agree with and admit to, per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(:cool:(6). Since they didn't rebut, they admitted the truthfulness and consented to the order he issued. In his case, the crime that would have been committed by a failure to address the issues raised would have been that of impersonating a public officer in criminal violation of 18 USC 912, conspiracy against rights under 18 USC 241, and obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, because you are the protected witness to the crime who is being injured by the court's failure to act or omission in acting to protect and defend the requirements of law imposed upon THEM and not YOU.
This is covered in the materials referenced. I don't care to repeat them here.
-
A rough overview of what is happening in the world today. From 9/11 to the Federal Reserve Bank. In this 9-minute video clip Beinki exposes the criminal system that has corrupted the Government and Congress.
-
A state court jury trial populated by non-franchisees would be most friendly, IMHO. AND the “Court” should be defined in the pleadings to EXCLUDE the judge. The judge is NOT the sovereign. The PEOPLE on the jury are the sovereign, as held by the U.S. Supreme Court.
-
1. Nonresident aliens not engaged in the “trade or business”/public office franchise are NOT required to have TINs or SSNs. This is covered in:
About IRS form W-8BEN, Form #04.202, Section 8
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.info/Forms/Tax/Withholding/W-8BEN/AboutIRSFormW-8BEN.htm
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.info/Forms/FormIndex.htm
It ought to be as simple as showing them block 8 of the Amended W-8BEN form on the above link:
http://sedm.info/Forms/Tax/Withholding/W-8BEN/IRSFormW8BENAmendeds.pdf
2. If they try to argue about one's status, tell them they aren't allowed to practice law on your behalf and not even a judge can declare one to be anything other than what they put on paper per 28 USC 2201(a).
3. The New Hire Paperwork Attachment, Form #04.203, is specifically intended for the situation described:
http://sedm.info/Forms/Tax/Withholding/NewHirePaperworkAtt.pdf
4. SEDM Exhibits 07.004 and 07.009 are letters from the Social Security Administration admitting that the use of SSNs is voluntary:
http://sedm.info/Exhibits/ExhibitIndex.htm
5. The following form proves that use of SSNs and TINs is illegal for those in compliance with the SEDM Member Agreement. One could show them that:
Why It is Illegal to Request or Use a Taxpayer Identification Number, form #04.205
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.info/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.info/Forms/Tax/Withholding/WhyTINIllegal.pdf
6. For legal defenses useful in the COMPELLED and ILLEGAL use of SSNs and TINs, see:
About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #07.004, Sections 8 thru 10
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.info/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.info/Forms/Tax/Procedure/AboutSSNs/AboutSSNs.htm
7. Those not lawfully occupying a public office in the U.S. government by OTHER than the use of SSNs are impersonating a public officer to use said number in connection with EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE pursuits, in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 912. Tell them that they are conspiring and compelling you to commit a crime in order to work for them if they compel the use of SSNs. See 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(8) and:
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a Public Officer for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.info/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.info/Forms/MemLaw/WhyThiefOrPubOfficer.pdf
The content of this post is also covered in:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, section 8.6.3
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.info/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf
-
EDITORIAL: Another commentary from the same author on pauperization. We agree with him.
See also:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/I-Am-Anti-Socialist/
________
The Dignified Parasite
In the repertoire of the Socialist Pirate one often hears of the need to provide “dignity” to the poor and needy. What is dignity that the poor and needy should be provided with it?
Quote:Dignity – 1. The state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect. 2. A composed or serious manner or style.What did the poor and needy do to be worthy of honor or respect?
If they did do something honorable or worthy, why would charity from the public treasury provide “dignity” to them?
Perhaps, one must remember that before FICA, the paupers had to take a public oath before receiving their charity.
Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauper%27s_oathI do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God.
Noteworthy – one has to swear that they have LESS than the amount that would guarantee them the access to the RULES of the common law (7th amendment, USCON). And after 1933, without lawful money in circulation, few if any had twenty dollars. [Dollar bills are repudiated debt instruments, and have no par value.]
Today's modern socialist serf is unaware of the legal consequences of pauperization, and the drop in legal status.
For more info, please read this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/361
As originally conceived, the servant governments were authorized to deal with those who were without property or means of support. However, to discourage them, the government was authorized to treat them as status criminals, and except them from the constitutional protections afforded to others. [See: Art IV of Confederation 1777]
Paupers were not treated with dignity. In fact, they were the lowest of the low. As the saying goes, “Beggars can't be choosers.”
That wise adage was turned on its head, once national socialism was enshrined in American law, via the Federal Insurance Contribution Act of 1935 (aka Social Security). This one act created an immoveable block to any reform, and locked up the future prosperity of America's progeny. Why? Because no recipient will vote for a reduction in his own benefit, and no politician dare defy them. When the fleas vote, the dog is doomed.
FICA / SocSec made parasites into a powerful political bloc. However, penalizing the productive for the benefit of the helpless resulted in making “professional poverty” into a career path.
And now we have a nation of dignified parasites and their downtrodden hosts.
There are several remedies.
1. The donor class can withdraw consent from the socialist / usurer dominated government.
2. The legislators could enact a voting ban on any recipient of public funds, for up to x years after last receipt.
3. The legislators could also disenfranchise those who do not pay taxes. Why should they decide on the disbursement of public funds that they do not contribute to?
Being cynical, I suspect that the nation will collapse before any meaningful reform is instituted.
-
42 USC 1983 is ONLY for suits:
1. Brought under the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Filed in FEDERAL court and NOT state court.
3. Involving ONLY state government actors.
It does not provide any remedies against federal actors. All cases brought against state actors in state court cannot cite 42 USC 1983 and ONLY must bring up constitutional violations of PRIVATE rights. Statutes should not be raised in state court because they only protect state actors. If you cite said state civil statutes, you are indirectly admitting to being a state actor, as covered in:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The best chance of winning in a state court against a state actor is to file it as a constitutional tort rather than a statutory violation and demand a jury trial. Otherwise, the judge is going to protect his fellow thieves and liars and no one else. And in doing so, he will become a criminal himself as a person with a conflict of interest. That conflict of interest is usually financial, because he is protecting state PLUNDER that pays his future retirement. It's all about the money, unfortunately.
1983 actions are discussed in:
Section 1983 Litigation, Form #08.008
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Litigation/DiscGovOfficials/Sect1983_Litigation.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm
The following resources on the SEDM sister site also discusses this subject. It's pointless to repeat those resources here. The second item requires a member subscription account to view:
1. Forum thread
http://sedm.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1470&st=0&p=2635&hl=1983&fromsearch=1&#entry2635
2. Legal Remedies for the Protection of Private Rights, Form #12.012
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
-
Prollins,
You are confused because you are confusing “Code” with “Statutes”. The code for each state can be accessed as you describe but the statutes from which the codes derive cannot. The statutes are where all the “dirty little secrets” and history are found, which is why they make sources so hard to find.
The “Code” in Arizona is called the “Arizona Revised Statutes”, not to be confused with the “Statutes” published by the Arizona Legislature.
By way of example, at the federal level, acts of congress are “enacted” first in the United States Statutes At Large. Then the law revision counsel of the house of representatives “codifies” them by subject matter by adding each act to the “U.S. Code”. The states do it the same way.
I wasn't referring to the “Code” but to the “Statutes”. The code but NOT the statutes can most easily be found at:
DIRECT LINK: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef/StateLegalResources.htm
For a description of how this process works see:
How Our Laws Are Made, Exhibit #03.002
EXHIBIT PAGE: http://www.sedm.org/Exhibits/ExhibitIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX03.002.pdf
-
None of the state or federal statutes are avilable free online. Not even Westlaw have them online without paying huge money. The US Statutes At Large on Westlaw costs $7 per page just to view. The only economical source is usually the county law library in print form.
-
Prollins,
Thanks for your two cents and we agree with it.
BucWild,
1. We don't give a damn what your wife thinks. These forums are not a dumping ground for the uninformed opinions and emotions of presumptuous fools who make useful idiots for de facto government terrorists. Opinions are like assholes: Everyone has one and they all STINK, including ours. Aren't you reading the rules for posting questions to these forums?:
http://www.sedm.org/Membership/GuideToAskingQuestions.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
2. Please do not post anything in these forums rebutting our materials but what is acceptable as evidence in court from reliable sources.
3. If you want to know what the government says are reliable sources, see:
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007 (OFFSITE LINKS)
DIRECT LINK: http://www.sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://www.sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
-
BucWild,
Jim M. doesn't have a site of his own. He is not much of a writer nor does he have any litigation experience or talent. His video is the only thing he produces that is publicly available.
If you seek further info on the positive law aspect of the IRC, then read:
Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003
DIRECT LINK: http://www.sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Consent.pdf
However, as we keep telling you, you are jumping the gun. You should go through the Path to Freedom curricula before cluttering these forums with questions that are anticipated and answered in advance by that curricula.
There are no silver bullets and it's pointless to chase down endless rabbit holes trying to find them. His video is not meant as a silver bullet but simply as one more way to confirm the many truths you will learn by sticking with the Path to freedom curriculum.
-
That’s old news. Our approach to that case is contained in:
1. Federal district court rules on Hansen injunction
http://famguardian.o…ling-060615.htm2. Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments Against This Website, Form #08.011. (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://www.sedm.org/…rgAgWebsite.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://www.sedm.org/…s/FormIndex.htm3. About Us Page, Section 19
http://famguardian.o…try/aboutus.htm4. Tax case study: C. Hansen
http://famguardian.o…sen/CHansen.htmIf you had used the search function on this site you would have quickly found the above articles. Many of the above links are on the opening page of this site. Please be much more careful next time before you slander and accuse. Now you are on our mole watchlist.