fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Here is rebuttal to the propanda written by Alfred Adask, who is the only “sovereign citizen” interviewed in the story:
SOURCE: http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/am-i-about-to-be-a-domestic-terrorist/#more-6682
__________
Am I About To Be Labeled a “Domestic Terrorist”?
15May
There is some reason to believe that I may soon be portrayed as a “domestic terrorist”. This article is intended to blunt that portrayal.
• Last Friday, I received notice from the TV program 60 Minutes that today, Sunday, May 15th, A.D. 2011, (about 35 minutes from now) they’d air a segment that includes me. I haven’t seen the segment, so I don’t know how I’ll be portrayed—but I have reason to believe that I may be cast in a false light and/or defamed by tomorrow’s program.
The cause for my concern is the 60 Minutes description of the segment on their “Up Next” webpage:
“Sovereign Citizens – Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer.” Watch a preview
In March, I’d spent my 2-hour interview with 60 Minutes trying to rationally explain that the concept of individual sovereignty was the fundamental principle that animated the American Revolution, was the cornerstone for American liberty, and could be traced to our God-given, unalienable Rights. In the end, sovereignty is a spiritual (rather than political) concept. Judging from the 60 Minutes description (above), the segment may be more akin to a sensationalized witch-hunt than an objective investigation into the subject of individual “sovereignty”.
Apparently, I am being being linked to Jerry Kane who (with his son, Joe) died in a recent shoot-out with police. So far as I can recall, I’d never heard of Jerry Kane until after he died.
These kinds of express or implied associations (between me and anyone who’s died in a gunfight with the police) are dangerous to me in that they place me at risk any time I interact with police. Insofar as police are led to believe that I’m cut from the same cloth as Jerry Kane, they may believe that I’m “armed and dangerous” (I’m not) and therefore increase the probability that I might be shot without cause.
I don’t know what the net effect of the 60 Minutes segment will be. I probably won’t know the full effect of the program for weeks or months after the program airs.
But judging from the description and video preview (above), 60 Minutes may be promoting (or at least implying) the idea that I’m a “domestic terror threat”. If so, that’s untrue and I have a well-publicized track record for at least 20 years to show that the only “violence” I’ve advocated is reading the law, educating yourself, and using your knowledge of the law and paperwork to defend against governmental oppression and to hold governmental officials and employees accountable for their misdeeds.
As big government becomes increasingly tyrannical, I can understand that its agencies might want to define any dissident who accuses the almighty gov-co of criminal or treasonous acts to be a “domestic terrorist” (especially if the accusations against gov-co are true). But, hopefully, reasonable men and women will insist that a “domestic terrorist” is one who commits actual acts of unjustified violence for political purposes. If so, that label does not apply to me.
Yes, I have long-recognized that violence against an established government may ultimately be necessary to stop tyranny and despotism (witness the American Revolution, WWII and the recent “Arab Spring”). The very concept of using violence to “throw off” despotic governments is enshrined in the “Declaration of Independence” that we celebrate every 4th of July. Our Second Amendment was intended to guarantee that the people would always have the means (firearms) to “throw off” a despotic government. Both the Declaration and the 2nd Amendment anticipate the probability that even the American government would one day again grow despotic and that the people would need both the principles and means to “throw off” that despotism.
I have advocated that people be prepared for the possibility that violence may one day become necessary. But I have not advocated that people commit violence—except as a last resort. And I have never advocated that people start shooting now.
My reason for advocating firearm ownership is not to incite violence but to prevent it. An unarmed people are easily oppressed and subjected to genocide by their own government. Witness Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. When a government confiscates the people’s firearms, genocide is usually imminent.
Lots of people advocate the ownership of firearms. I go a step further and advocate that the people be “armed” with both firearms and the reason for owing firearms. That reason is not to go duck hunting in the Fall. The reason for owning firearms—as found in the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment—is to overthrow a despotic or treasonous government.
It was my advocacy of the reason for owning firearms that brought me to 60 Minutes’ attention. I suspect that my advocacy of understanding the reason may be twisted by 60 Minutes to falsely suggest that I advocate violence. We shall see.
However, yesterday, I sent an email to Clem Taylor and Jessica Haddad at 60 Minutes advising them that I do not consent to be cast in a false light and/or defamed by 60 Minutes. That notice may have legal consequence, but I doubt that it will have any effect on tonight’s broadcast.
Here’s a copy of the text of the email:
Re: This Sunday on 60 Minutes NOTICE OF NO CONSENT
Hi Jessica & Clem,
I received Jessica’s email (below) about 3:45 PM CST. It announced that you intend to broadcast a 60 Minutes segment this coming Sunday, that will include me.
I was initially excited.
Then I visited the 60 Minutes website and read the following description on the “Up Next” webpage:
“Sovereign Citizens – Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer”
Judging from that description, it appears that the people at 60 Minutes may intend to use my interview to produce a segment that expressly says or implies that I am a violent extremist and/or domestic terror threat–and/or that I knowingly associate with violent extremists and/or domestic terrorists. Both descriptions would be false.
If 60 Minutes does “cherry pick” a couple of my offhand remarks out an interview that lasted nearly two hours to describe me as violent or any kind of terrorist, that description would be false and defamatory. Given your journalistic obligation to fully research your segments and given my extensive public background (including my A.D. 1992 candidacy for the Texas Supreme Court), such defamation would be knowing. I have a documented public history that extends at least back to A.D. 1990. This history has been expressed my radio shows, my magazine, my blog and a number of mainstream media reports. That history demonstrates that my position has always been to seek a civil solution to our problems with government. While I have always recognized that violence against government might be justified by government’s own institutionalized tyranny (as it was for our Founders in A.D. 1776), I have never advocated violence as an objective, but only as a last resort in defense of liberty.
Nevertheless, during the interview Mr. Pitts asked me repeatedly about a particular radio broadcast I’d done at some time in the past. In that one radio program, I explained that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people of The United States of America against governmental tyranny by shooting, if necessary, politicians and governmental employees who engage in tyranny. I attempted to explain to Mr. Pitts that my position on the 2nd Amendment was justified by the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights. If 60 Minutes chooses to take my words out of context and without reference to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, I might be defamed and falsely portrayed as an advocate of violence.
Here’s an article I wrote on the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights and first published on or about April 14th, A.D. 2011:
http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/preamble-to-the-bill-of-rights/
As you may know, my landlord (a middle class businessman) at Utopia (where the interview was conducted) warned that 60 Minutes might edit my interview so as to not only defame me, but attract so much adverse government attention as to cause in a “Ruby Ridge-” or “Waco-” style raid on my landlord’s property. In fact, even though my rent was paid until the end of April, my landlord was so fearful of a possible government “raid” that he ordered me to vacate his property on Sunday, March 13th, and I did in fact leave on March 16th, right after the 60 Minutes interview.
After the actual interview, I mentioned my “eviction” to Mr. Pitts and Mr. Taylor. They both seemed shocked that anyone would distrust 60 Minutes journalistic integrity. Both men assured me that 60 Minutes had a reputation for fair and objective journalism and that I need not fear being falsely depicted on the final segment. Until now, I have trusted in Mr. Pitts’ and Mr. Taylor’s assurance and in the 60 Minutes reputation for fairness and objectivity.
However, because the “Up Next” description of the segment on “sovereign citizens” seems so sensationalized and biased against “sovereign citizens,” I am concerned that my trust in Mr. Pitts, Mr. Taylor and 60 Minutes may have been betrayed.
I am therefore sending this email to you as a Notice that:
1) I do not consent to be defamed by 60 Minutes; and,
2) I do not consent or otherwise agree to have any of my statements or images broadcast on 60 Minutes if those statements and images are used to cast me in a false light and/or are defamatory.
As I explained to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Pitts, I don’t expect the 60 Minute segment to be flattering. I recognize that the issue of “sovereignty” is controversial. But the issue of sovereignty is no more controversial than the Declaration of Independence from which our sovereignty flows. I therefore expect the 60 Minutes segment to portray me objectively and in a way that’s consistent with the overall impression of the 2-hour interview and with my 20 year history of political activism. If 60 Minutes can’t do that, and has instead chosen to defame me, I do not consent to be portrayed in the 60 Minutes segment on “sovereign citizens”.
CREED: At all times and places, I have been, am and will be as our Father YHWH ha Elohiym made me: An actual, physical man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Unless otherwise expressly and voluntarily agreed by me in writing over my actual hand-written signature: I exercise my actual rights of religious and political freedom of choice to declare that the venue of all of my conduct, speech, writings, agreements, residence and domicile is: without the singular “United States” and actually on the soil within the physical boundaries of The County of Dallas located within the border of The State of Texas–one of the several member-States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”; that all of my conduct is intentional; that all of my acts and intentions take place in a Year of our Lord; that I act at arm’s length and without prejudice to my capacity as a sovereign Dei gratia; that I do not consent to act as, or as part of, any “double personality,” “double capacity,” and/or “double character”; that my duty of obedience is only to that government that exists under the authority granted by our Father YHWH ha Elohiym as per Romans 13:1-7 and is consistent with the express charitable trust called “The Constitution of The State of Texas” and “The Organic Law of The United States of America”; that I have not knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily consented to be subject by virtue of mere statute, rule, regulation, emergency, or alleged moral or obligation to the authority of any unincorporated, implied charitable trust; that my purposes are at all times religious first and/or political second and dedicated to restoring understanding and respect for the spiritual principles which provide the foundation for the republican form of government guaranteed at Article 4 Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States ratified in A.D. 1788 and by Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas.
Alfred Adask a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK”
radio: American Independence Hour T-W-Th, 10-11 PM CST, http://www.wwfar.com & WWCR shortwave 3.215; simulcast on http://www.theamericanvoice.com/;
-
Bonman,
Thanks for sharing that research. Fantastic!
We took the liberty of going through and reformatting but not editing it to make it easier to follow for other forum members.
-
SOURCE: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/guilty_verdict_stuns_268.html
We were right about the audio recordings! Two experts testified that the audio recordings were FAKE. Steele was framed.
_____________________
GUILTY VERDICT STUNS
By Pat Shannan
(Issue # 19 & 20, May 9 & 16, 2011)
Looking pale and drawn from 11 months of jail house food and no sunlight, Idaho attorney Edgar Steele, 65, was finally able to face his accusers when his federal trial began in Boise on April 27. He was charged with hiring his handyman to murder his wife and mother-in-law. On May 5, his jury of 11 women and one man found him guilty on all four counts: murder for hire, use of interstate commerce for same, possession of a destructive device and tampering with a victim.
The jury had to sort out who plotted against whom. Did Steele want his wife murdered, or did Larry Fairfax, 50, steal the family’s silver from its secret hiding place and then fabricate the murder plot as a cover-up?
Jailhouse inmate Darrell Hollingsworth testified that Fairfax told him that the FBI had “made a deal” with him to frame Steele.
A crudely constructed pipe bomb was found underneath Cyndi’s SUV when she stopped for a routine oil change in Coeur d’Alene on June 15, but the fuse was faulty and had failed to ignite from muffler heat as the culprits apparently expected. Fairfax had admitted last year that he had placed the bomb there two weeks earlier.
Lending a further shadow of suspicion over authorities was their own court testimony that no fingerprinting of the bomb was attempted before or after removal. The Steeles claimed they were “set up” because of his politically incorrect stand on various issues. Both Cyndi and daughter Kelsey, 20, testified that they have endured telephone death threats for several years.
Several FBI audio recordings of Steele played for the jury sounded potentially incriminating, but defense attorneys enlisted the aid of two audio experts who, independently, found the recordings to be contrived.
One listed over 300 suspicious discrepancies and went so far as to assert that the voice discussing the murder-for-hire payoffs with Fairfax was not that of Steele.
At the April 20 to 21 pretrial hearings, Judge Lynn Winmill dealt the defense a severe blow by ruling that the recordings could be entered into the case but not the testimony of the two experts, Dr. George Papcun of Santa Fe, N.M. and Dennis Walsh, a former NYC detective in charge of audio at the precinct level.
Their testimony had the potential to destroy the government’s case as well as provoke a fraud investigation, but it was not heard.
Unexpected testimony from Fairfax during cross-examination revealed that he was writing a book, but after examining over 250 pages of manuscript, the court determined there were no incriminating admissions or confessions. More details of the case will emerge.
(Issue # 19 & 20, May 9 & 16, 2011)
-
The so called “Indiana Supreme Court” isn't acting as a court at all in the ruling listed. True constitutional courts CANNOT act in a political capacity, entertain “political questions” reserved for the political branches (executive and legislative), or declare public policy. If they do, they are violating the separation of powers doctrine and become an executive branch agency and de facto officers within a de facto government.
That ruling isn't worth a hill of beans, and here is why:
Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.004
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf
If it were me, I would have explained in the petition for the case that:
1. I don't want an “opinion” but a statement of facts and positive law in the ruling.
2. Any decision by the Supreme Court to declare public policy and act as a member of the Executive branch shall conclusively be construed as the private acts of de facto officers.
3. I would have attached a franchise agreement that authorizes me to issue the ruling in the case that the judges vacate the de jure bench and act in a political capacity, because SOMEONE has the do the job of a REAL court when the true constitutional office has been vacated, or violence and a threat to public safety will be the result.
4. I would have attached a DEFAULT order and default admissions for all issues they refuse to address and invoke Fed.Rul 8(:cool:(6).
-
This guy says it better than any other. Short one minute video on what compliant Americans must do to stop the insanity of airport “security” searches. Name one terrorist that has been caught on American soil through airport searches. Name one terrorist attack that has been stopped. Is being groped in our privates the price we have to pay for security. I don't think so. Enjoy and articulate, short presentation on this subject.
YouTube:
The TSA Agent Who Molested Anna Drexel Should Do Jail Time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU_DIzS4BsY
TSA agents are violating Americans 4th Amendments rights with these invasive patdowns that do nothing to further airport security. If the Feds won't stop the process, then local prosecutors should start filing charges.
-
If you are a former Pete Hendrickson fan, you should consider reading the following, which explain in detail why Pete went to jail and what he did wrong, so you don't repeat the same mistakes:
1. Policy Document: Pete Hendrickson's “Trade or Business Approach, Form #08.003
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/PolicyDocs/PeteHendrickson.pdf
2. The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
3. Who's Who in the Freedom Community, Section 19
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/CaseStudies/WhosWho/WhosWho.htm
After you finish reading the above, you should follow the MANDATORY curricula in the following and complete up to step 14 of section 2 before asking for help in these forums:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf
This site has been in existence for over ten years and none of the people involved in creating the content have been criminally prosecuted. They tried to shut the site down with a failed injunction but even after two years of litigation and several thousand pages of legal pleadings, they still could not point out EVEN ONE factual and false thing on this website. Hence, they have put their stamp of approval on EVERYTHING here and verified its accuracy. See the following for details:
About Us page, Section 19
-
The conundrum of removing Obama/Soetoro from office
By: Devvy Kidd
May 11, 2011
The anti-truth “mainstream” media (newspapers, Internet and boob tube) as well as cable tv anchor hosts like shallow Sean Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly, smugly believe the issue Obama/Soetoro's dual citizenship is somehow going
to go away based on the release of “the” birth certificate, April 27, 2011, by the usurper in the White House. Wishful thinking for all of them who have no regard for the U.S. Constitution and the right of the American people to
know whether or not a presidential candidate is legally eligible to run.
Despite all the ballyhoo on the networks, radio and Internet about the “new” long form birth certificate being end of discussion, none of those bastions of the truth from anchors on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, all the web sites
and of course, the “fair and balanced” FOX News Network, has touched the issue of the latest document being an obvious forgery.
The problem with Obama/Soetoro's citizenship has now festered to the near breaking point. A boil oozing puss and a putrid stench that will have to be addressed in the near future. Had the gutless cowards in the Outlaw Congress
done their solemn duty, January 9, 2009, and stopped the electoral college vote then and there, we would not be here today. No presidential candidate who was in Congress that day will ever get my vote because he/she didn't
have the courage to stand up and begin the process of stopping the vote and proceeding with an investigation for a massive controversy all of them knew was burning across this country. That includes my congressman when he runs
again in 2012, who sat there like a stuffed dummy.
Setting aside the issue of the birth certificate as far as where little bouncing Barry (Soetoro) was actually born, the only legal issue is his father's citizenship at the time Obama, Sr's progeny was brought into this
world. Barry has now produced the “real” birth certificate listing Barack Obama, Sr., as the biological father, so he's stuck with it. Obama, Sr., was a Kenyan national visiting the U.S., he was not a U.S. citizen. In 1961,
Kenya was still a British Colony making Obama, Sr. a subject of that commonwealth. Obama, Jr. was automatically a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus, he is forever ineligible to be president of these united States of America.
But, how would you remove Obama/Soetoro from office?
I am not a lawyer and I have no legal training, but I have read every court case and posting by attorney's involved in the lawsuits over Barry's ineligibility. This is by no means a simple case of impeachment because you cannot impeach a usurper. I have not and will not support any petitions or efforts to impeach Obama/Soetoro because it would set a horrible legal precedent. As Nancy Pelosi made it very clear when the Democrats took power away from the Republicans there would be no impeachment of Bush, the same applies with the Republicans and Obama/Soetoro:
“If Republicans take control of the House, there is “not a chance at this point” that they will try to impeach President Obama, a top Republican lawmaker said this week
. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who would helm the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee if the GOP wins on Election Day, said that his party will not try to bring impeachment charges simply because it disagrees with the president.”
Bush was worth far more political currency to the Democrats if left in office and the same applies to the Republicans regarding Barry. He's also a cash cow for talk radio and nightly gab fests on cable tv.
If we are going to adhere to the law, then as painful as it might be, you have to understand what a usurper means: to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to
usurp the throne.
No matter how frustrated and enraged we are about the actions of that empty suit sullying the people's house, to give legitimacy to his presidency would allow all the bills he signed into law to remain in effect.
Beware some of the groups pushing for impeachment and who is behind them. Impeaching the usurper would be the easiest route for the Outlaw Congress in that they would not have to deal with all the “laws” signed by a president
who legally never occupied the office. Since the usurper had no legal authority to sign anything into law, they are all null and void.
Because Barry Soetoro (his last known legal name) lied his way into the White House he is holding a position of power without any legal authority. When you remove a usurper it is as if that individual was never in office or
power, which is why you cannot impeach him:
“Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4).”[1]
That, plus the worn out race card issue, is why I believe no matter how many petitions are sent to the Outlaw Congress to impeach Obama/Soetoro, those gutless “leaders” have let the situation rot to the point that any whiff of
impeachment would create a constitutional crisis. In case those ethically bankrupt career politicians in the Outlaw Congress haven't noticed, it already is a constitutional crisis that is not going away.
Why has the U.S. Supreme Court kicked aside the few lawsuits dealing with Barry's eligibility? A couple were actually heard in conference, but none were advanced for oral arguments. The justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are
not stupid and in fact, Justice Clarence Thomas all but acknowledged the court has deliberately evaded the issue; see video here ; .
Other than the obvious political reasons and the old Soviet stand-by propaganda of race baiting, why would the high court evade the issue?
I believe that attorney, Leo Donofrio, who had the original case in New Jersey to get Barry, McCain and a Nicaraguan born candidate off the ballot, has been right all along. Obama/Soetoro should have been removed from office
by a federal Quo Warranto action. While you may disagree with me, I concur with Leo that is the only constitutional legal method to remove Barry. That statute was written specifically to deal with this problem:
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds
or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation
of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be
approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the
writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the
interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.
As Leo wrote in one of his legal analysis:
“The issue of whether the President can be removed from office other than by impeachment is the single most important question presented with regard to challenging the eligibility of a sitting President. This section of the
brief contains important new information supporting the conclusions discussed in Part 1 of this legal brief .
“Please understand that if the Constitution limits Congressional power to remove the President to only cases of impeachment then there is no Constitutional mechanism available to remove a President who is proved to be
a usurper. And if that's true, then the federal quo warranto statute doesn't have the power to remove a sitting President… even if it was proved beyond any doubt he was ineligible.
“The best dream team of lawyers you can draft may bring all the law suits they like for the best possible reasons in favor of the most perfectly possible plaintiffs with undeniable standing as to injury in fact and causality, but the courts do not have the authority – under the Constitution – to remove a sitting President. Those law suits will fail and they should fail.
“In order to protect the Constitution, we must not subvert the separation of powers.
“If it can't be done by quo warranto, then it can't be done at all. Why?
“Because Congress is the only branch authorized by the Constitution to remove the President should he be found ineligible. And the only court Congress has delegated that power to is the District Court of the District of Columbia, and such delegation of power is strictly limited to actions governed by the federal quo warranto statute.
“If we are going to challenge eligibility to protect the Constitution, then we certainly cannot do an end around the separation of powers. I have recognized this from the outset and that's why I tried to have the eligibility issue litigated prior to election day and then again prior to the electoral college meeting. After the electoral college met and cast its votes for Obama, he went from being an ordinary candidate to being the President-elect.”[2][3]
It is not easy to qualify as a qualified individual to file a Quo Warranto; see Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, in Footnote [2] below. Many of us wrote letters back in March 2009, to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in
Washington, DC, requesting he proceed with a Quo Warranto (there are no plaintiffs). Act surprised: May 28, 2009, Taylor announced his resignation effective May 29, 2009.
So who would that leave? Chuck Baldwin, who ran for president on the Constitution Party ticket; he declined to file a federal Quo Warranto. Dr. Alan Keyes also ran in 2008. I don't believe he filed a direct request
; with the District Court in Washington, DC:
“A prominent attorney who has shepherded a number of high-profile legal cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has brought a “Quo Warranto” case to district court in Washington, D.C., alleging his allegiances have included Britain, Kenya and Indonesia. A Quo Warranto action, first recorded some 800 years ago, essentially is a demand to know by what authority a public figure is acting. The case, brought by California
attorney Orly Taitz on behalf of herself, was assigned to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth. Taitz told WND that in a separate action she has filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the dismissal of a case
she brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes and dozens of other individuals in California challenging Obama‘s eligibility.”
Based on Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, my personal opinion is Dr. Taitz does not qualify.
Is there any statute of limitations on filing a Quo Warranto? Not in California ; :
“Quo warranto is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority unlawfully asserted, and is not appropriate for moot or abstract questions. Where the alleged usurpation has terminated, quo warranto will be denied.
(People v. City of Whittier (1933) 133 Cal.App. 316, 324; 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 223 (1955).) By the same token, because quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action. (People v. Bailey (1916) 30 Cal.App. 581, 584-585.)”
How about at the federal level? I don't know, but it seems to me there would be no statute of limitations if one uses the reasoning above: a quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to
the action.
Is there any other legal remedy to force the issue of Barry's ineligibility? Dr. Edwin Vieria addressed that back in December 2008:
“For example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that reinstates the Clinton “assault-weapons ban” (or some equally obnoxious affront to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and the Second Amendment), the
defendant will undeniably have “standing” to challenge the indictment on the grounds that no statute imposing such a ban even exists, because the original “Bill which * * * passed the House of Representatives and the
Senate” was never “presented to the President of the United States”, and therefore could never “become a Law,” inasmuch as the supposed “President,” Barack Obama, being constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then
and remains thereafter nothing but an usurper. [See Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 and Article II, Section 1, 4]”[4]
What's going to happen? Since Barry is controlled by his handlers, they can throw him under the bus or attempt to bluff him into a second term. A qualified individual(s) under Newman could (with a team of constitutional
attorneys) still file a Federal Quo Warranto.
Knowing there will be nothing but an endless number of lawsuits filed in 2012 to keep Obama/Soetoro off the ballot and the growing anger by the American people for crimes committed by Barry (wire fraud, election fraud, forgery, use of a fake SSN for starters), something will have to give soon.
What about holding Obama/Soetoro legally accountable for his crimes? That can be pursued once he is removed from office. Don't expect the corrupt Attorney General, Eric Holder, to bring charges. It will have to come independent of him and at great personal cost to the U.S. Attorney who might files charges against Barry.
It isn't the “birthers” who are responsible for this mess. It's the useful fools in the dominant media and cable tv anchors who protected Barry from day one. It's also the fault of and every Secretary of State in this country
back in 2008 who refused to verify a candidate's eligibility to be on the ballot; add the Outlaw Congress who proceeded with certifying the electoral college vote. Of course, the ultimate blame falls only to Barack Hussein
Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Obama aka Barry Dunham aka Barack Dunham.
All known aliases used by the cool guy in the White House who managed to pull off one of the greatest frauds in the history of this country — besides himself.
Footnotes:
[1] Obama Must Step Up Now or Stand Down
;
[2] Quo Warranto by Leo Donofrio
[3] The Federal Quo Warranto Statute
; Is The Only Constitutional
Means of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment
[4] In the Shadow of Nemesis
;
-
CDLs are ONLY available to those:
1. Domiciled on federal territory.
2. Acting as a public officer within the govenrment BEFORE they apply.
3. Not protected by the constitution.
4. Who are statutory but not constitutional citizens.
Hence, those who are human beings, non-citizen nationals, and constitutional but not statutory citizens are INELIGIBLE for CDLs and must be turned down even if they DO apply. This is covered in:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
FORMS: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Franchises.pdf
An UNALIENABLE right (Declaration of Independence) can't lawfully be sold, bargained away, or transferred by ANY process, including a vehicle code franchise or the CDL it implements. The problem is the licensing clerks offering the franchise to ineligible persons, not the fact that they don't have a CDL for those who have unalienable rights.
-
We don't know of a way to do that. Search the IRS forms page to find a form.
-
This Week's Tax Tip
On the Use of a 4852
May 10, 2011
The use of certain government-published forms is by no means obligatory or inherently significant in making use of what is revealed about the law and the tax in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' ( CtC) but it certainly can be convenient, and can help ensure that everything needing to be said in a rebuttal is said, when a rebuttal is appropriate. See http://losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/GovernmentPrintedForms.pdf for more on this.
However, there have long been some folks who have harbored anxieties about using such forms. These anxious and sometimes regrettably anxiety-paralyzed folks imagine that irrespective of what one actually says on the form, it being the vehicle of those words somehow compromises the declaration.
This unfortunate notion has deep roots in the non-CtC-educated “tax honesty” community, and is based on the misunderstanding that the tax is status-based, rather than privileged activity-based. Some believe, for example, that the tax applies to (and/or ONLY to) all earnings of “United States Citizens” (or “United States citizens”– much store is put in some of these circles on whether or not “citizen” is capitalized)– just because they are (or let themselves be perceived to be) such citizens (as opposed to “American citizens”; or union state citizens, such as a citizen of Michigan).
Married to this “status” misunderstanding is the idea that the use of a 1040 declares one to be a “United States citizen”, either simply because it is a form published by the United States, or by reading the title of the form as “United States Individual” (Tax Return)– that is, a tax return to be used by a “United States Individual” (read to effectively mean “United States citizen”).
Another version of this chain of misunderstanding sees the status issue as being geographically-based, and the key to be “residency” (imagining that where you are when you earn money determines whether or not the money is “income” and subject to the tax). The same basic misconstruction of the use of a 1040 is applied in this case, too: the use of the 1040 declares oneself to be a “U.S. person” and therefore a “U.S. resident”). (See http://losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/CitizenshipAndTheFourteenth.htm http://losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/snakeoilwarning.htm; and also the appendix of CtC for more on these misunderstandings.)
Similar anxieties have been conceived of by some of these folks concerning the use of Forms 4852, in which it is imagined that use of the form constitutes an “admission” of having the status of an “employee” (as that term is relevantly defined in tax law) or being in “employment” (as that term is relevantly defined in tax law). This is then somehow imagined to make any assertion of amounts of “wages” received on a 4852 which is contrary to what appears on a W-2 inherently invalid.
There is no valid basis for such fears. Obviously, even if one WERE an “employee”, reports on a W-2 of “wage” payments related to acting in that capacity can be wrong, just as they are if one is NOT an “employee”. Thus, one's status has no inherent relevance to the use of a 4852, and any concern about an imagined implication that its user is an “employee” (or in “employment” — a term defining a special subclass of “employees” which will be discussed in more detail later) is groundless. The use of the form supports no implications either way, because that status has nothing to do with its use.
Little more should need to be said to put a proper perspective on the use of a 4852, and any fears of implications therefrom. But because it offers a good framework for laying out several important principles of logic and law, and because these notions about the use of government-produced forms are periodically injected into dialogues within the CtC community, a more detailed discussion of what is and what isn't implied by the use of a 4852 will be worthwhile. Therefore, while everyone must do his or her own study, and come to his or her own conclusions, I want to share the following thoughts on this subject as a new Tax Tip.
WHEN YOU FILE A 4852 AND 1040 rebutting an erroneous W-2 which inaccurately asserts payments of “wages”,
YOU ARE NOT saying you're not an “employee” or in “employment”, or that the payer is not an “employer”.
Rebutting an erroneous W-2 with a 4852 doesn't involve saying anything about any of these things, because they don't enter into the picture. Even federal “employees” can receive payments for services rendered from the federal employer for which they work which don't qualify as “wages”, which are not subject to tax, and from which any “withholding as tax” that took place would have been done in error. (See 26 CFR sections 31.3121(:cool:-4, 31.3401(a)-2 and 31.3401(c)-1, for instance.) Therefore, whether you are or are not an “employee” is not inherently relevant to the rebuttal of erroneous “wage”-payment assertions.
AT THE SAME TIME, you are also NOT saying you ARE an “employee”– there is nothing on the face of a 4852 to which your signature relates that says “I am an “employee” (or “in employment”), or that the payer/withholder involved was/is an “employer” relative to you, as those various terms are meant in the law.
Nor does the use of a 4852 affirm or dispute the aptness of the creation of a W-2 about you in the first place. A 4852 is designed to do neither of these things. The form is designed simply to correct assertions about how much you were paid that qualified as “wages”, and how much was “withheld” from you “as tax” (and/or how much was paid to you as deferred “wages” in the form of a pension). Its use doesn't declare you to be (or not be) an “employee”, or declare the person whose testimony you're using the form to rebut to be (or not be) an “employer”. Whatever is true about those issues has no relevance to what a 4852 is used to declare.
ALL YOU'RE SAYING by the use of a 4852 is that someone created a W-2 or 1099-R containing erroneous assertions that you were paid “wages” in particular amounts, and what the correct amount of “wages” paid to you is. You are also declaring how much was diverted from amounts owed to you by the application of “withholding” rules which only provide for “withholding as tax” based on the amounts of “wages” paid, (plus whatever you answer to the questions on lines 8 and 9). What you're NOT doing is arguing about WHY anything that may have been paid to you doesn't qualify as “wages”; or explaining or defending anything at all.
Think of it this way: Say one day you find in your mailbox a copy of an allegation by a resident of a nearby town who claims to have seen you illegally parked in a spot posted for 15-minute parking only between 12-6AM weekdays. Your accuser says he has submitted the allegation to the town clerk, and copied you. Needless to say, you promptly act to correct the record.
At the town offices, you find a “Rebut a Bogus Illegal Parking Accusation” form. The form doesn't ask you to declare whether you were in town that day, or whether you have a driver's license, or whether or not you actually own a car. It just asks you how many minutes you were parked at 123 Elm Street at between 12:00 midnight and 6 in the morning on February 15, 2011. You fill in the blank with “None”.
Now, did using this form to say “None” admit (or deny, for that matter) being in town that day, having a driver's license, or owning a car? No. Its use in the manner described just says you weren't parked at that spot on that day during those hours.
RETURNING TO W-2s, if, subsequent to your rebuttal of a W-2 with a 4852 (and for some difficult-to-imagine reason), a challenge were to be issued specifically “accusing” you of being an “employee” (or in “employment”), then it would become time to rebut that accusation.
BUT SUCH A CHALLENGE WOULDN'T BE MADE, and wouldn't be fit or legally-meaningful. The issue of being an “employee” is irrelevant within the narrow context of the return process, since even payments made to “employees” are not automatically “wages” or subject to “withholding [of amounts] as tax”, or to the “income tax”. Establishing whether someone is or isn't an “employee” doesn't make or break anyone's assertions about the payment or receipt of “wages”.
Making such a challenge would be like the town in our “parking” model coming back and demanding to know if you were parked in town that day. The answer would be, “What difference does THAT make?!”
If you drew a real nutcase correspondent, who shot back with, “If you weren't a “town parker” that day, why did you use a TOWN FORM to deny parking at 123 Elm Street for more than 15 minutes between 12 midnight and 6 AM, EH?!”, you would point out that the form you used is published by the town for rebutting erroneous “illegal parking” accusations, and that's what you used it for.
You would further point out that nothing on the face of the form to which your signature applies declares you to be (or not be) a “town parker”. (You might refer your excited correspondent to examples of how status specifications are made when they are meant to be indicated by the use of a form, such as the federal W-9, on which one of the explicit declarations is that of being a “U.S. Person”).
You would point out that even the instructions provided for the assistance of those who can't figure out how to complete it, which say that it is the form to be used by “town parkers” who have been erroneously accused of illegal parking to rebut the accusation, DON'T say that ONLY “town parkers” are to use the form, or that NON-“town parkers” are NOT to use it. Nor do those instructions refer non-“town parkers” to any other instrument or process to which they must resort for their rebuttal to be understood. (As an example of how restricted use is indicated when it is meant, you might point to federal Form 843 “Claim for Refund”, on the face and in the instructions for which is plainly said that the form is NOT to be used for claiming “an overpayment of income taxes”, and that such claims should be made by way of a tax return, instead.)
Finally, you would say, “By the way, we STILL haven't gotten past the, “What difference does THAT make?” issue… Unless you have some kind of evidence to present beyond the mere accusation that I parked illegally, you've got no basis for carrying on about this in the face of my rebuttal, whether I was a “town parker” that day or not.”
“B..B..B..But,” might sputter your persistent pit-yorkie, “I'm deeming your rebuttal to be “frivolous”, and therefore not taking it into account!”
“Why?”
“Because using it says you're a “town parker”…”
“As was just made clear, no, it doesn't; and as was also just made clear, that's irrelevant, anyway.”
Pretending not to have heard you, your bureaucrat might rush on: “…and it says you didn't park illegally, and, uhhh… and that makes it “frivolous” because ALL “town parkers” park illegally!”
“Wow! Talk about “frivolous”…!”
“ARRGHH! GO AWAY!!”
“See ya.”
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Recognize what is relevant and what isn't. Keep your focus on what is.
The fact is, whether you were parked in town that day has nothing to do with whether you parked in that restricted place; and the question would never be asked. If it WERE asked (and if you hadn't been), you would then testify that you hadn't been parked in town that day.
BY THE WAY, none of this means or implies that you are asserting that the exceptions to “wage” qualification of payments to federal employees apply to you. Unless you ARE an “employee” as defined in the law, they don't (but at the same time, unless you are such an “employee” none of the rest of the “employee”-related provisions apply to you, either, and no payment to you can qualify as “wages”). It just means that “employee” status is not a first-tier determinant as to whether one has, or could have received “wages”, and so it is irrelevant to the questions and assertions on a 4852.
BY THE WAY II, any withholding that may have taken place is obviously not evidence of its own fitness. Some folks have expressed anxiety over the use of 4852s due to the lines on the form for reporting amounts “withheld as tax”. The fear is that declaring that amounts were “withheld as tax” is to endorse the FITNESS of such withholding, because it is only from “wages” that the sort of “withholding” described can properly be done.
Simply describing this circular reasoning makes its invalidity clear, and little more need be said. Considered without the distortion of anxiety, it is clear that to acknowledge that amounts were “withheld as tax” is to acknowledge nothing but the truth. Those amounts WERE “withheld as tax”! They were just WRONGLY “withheld as tax”, as is being said at the same time by one testifying to not having received any of the “wages” to which such withholding properly applies, and by which it is to be measured.
When you see a ridiculous argument to the contrary, attempting to contend that by declaring that withholding took place one is “admitting” that what was withheld from was “wages”, you can take it as firm evidence that the speaker is a moron, or a dissembler with no real and honest position to argue (or both).
FURTHER…
You are NOT “correcting” the W-2 by submitting a 4852. Correcting the W-2 can only be done by the party who created it in the first place, and would typically be done by way of a Form W-2c (although a creator that became educated in the truth about the tax, and whose company wasn't actually a federal entity might do it just by way of a personal affidavit…).
Rather, by submitting a 4852, you are CORRECTING THE RECORD– by which is meant the evidentiary record in the files of an entity claiming the right to impose a tax based on amounts of “wages” paid (a government, in other words). Until you speak with your submission, that record consists of only the W-2.
Your 4852 corrects the record by introducing accurate contrary information. It is not a correction of the W-2 (which means making the W-2 itself accurate); it is a correction of the record of information initially created by the W-2.
***
AS LONG AS WE'RE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I want to take this opportunity to also address a very common misunderstanding about the meaning of “employment taxes”, which results from the use of that phrase to describe certain tax provisions the codified representations of which are gathered in the IRC in a subtitle of the same name (Subtitle C). That aggregation and an overly-casual use of the phrase “employment taxes” by accountants, lawyers and others causes many to have difficulty remembering that these taxes are just “income” taxes like all others. They are simply a subclass of “income” taxes which are measured using specially-defined terms denominated as “employment” and “employee” (and in some chapters even more narrowly, such as “railroad employee”).
The use of these terms or that title for the subclass doesn't make them “taxes on being employed”, or “working taxes”, or in any way anything other than, or different from, “income” taxes of all other varieties and denominations. They are still taxes on the exercise of federal privilege. This subclass simply involves certain specific exercises of privilege, and certain special application protocols which are related to that specialized exercise, making it proper or helpful to distinguish them accordingly.
The text of 26 USC 3121(l) offers a good illustration:
“The Secretary shall, at the American employer's request, enter into an agreement (in such manner and form as may be prescribed by the Secretary) with any American employer (as defined in subsection (h)) who desires to have the insurance system established by title II of the Social Security Act [42 USCS sections 401 et seq.] extended to service performed outside the United States in the employ of any 1 or more of such employer's foreign affiliates (as defined in paragraph (6)) by all employees who are citizens or residents of the United States, except that such agreement shall not apply to any service performed by, or remuneration paid to, an employee if such service or remuneration would be excluded from the term “employment” or “wages”, as defined in this section, had the service been performed in the United States.”
Read that again carefully, if necessary. This language clearly distinguishes between services performed by an employee which DO qualify as “employment” (and payments for the same, which therefore DO qualify as “wages”), and services by, and payments to, an employee which DO NOT so qualify.
This is because chapter 21 of the Code, where 3121(l) is found, uses a special definition of “employment” to narrow the application of its “wages” definition to federally-connected workers (and to just a subset of such workers). This is distinct from the structure of chapter 24– the general “withholding” chapter– where the narrowing of ITS “wages” definition to federal-worker remuneration hinges on its custom definition of “employee”.
It is because of that difference that the language quoted above distinguishes between 'employees' and those in “employment”, treating them as non-concurrent categories. In chapter 21, 'employees' is defined (more-or-less) as anyone who would meet the common definition of that word. But all those who meet THAT definition are NOT in “employment” as THAT term is defined in the chapter, and on which its definition of “wages” depends. Thus, we can see that for purposes of the “employment taxes” subtitle of the IRC, being a commonly-defined 'employee' has no inherent relevance to the application of the tax. In short, “employment taxes” doesn't mean “taxes for being employed”.
TO SUMMARIZE, while there definitely ARE traps of meaning and presumption set for the unwary in the tax structure (and no one knows this better than the CtC-educated), it is just as important to eschew paralyzing or misleading paranoia such as fears related to the use of certain forms as it is to recognize and avoid the real snares lurking in the statutory design.
It falls to each of us to diligently apply logic and knowledge to every aspect of the law with which we must deal. We must also apply common sense.
Applying common sense means recognizing that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. It also means recognizing that those seeking to sustain the decades-old “ignorance tax” for another few years until they have looted every penny of wealth out of the hands of average Americans won't hesitate for a moment to prompt and exploit any stumble into uncertainty and confusion by CtC-educated Americans which might discourage them from acting personally, and from spreading the truth about the tax to every corner of this great country. Don't be taken in by paralyzing and divisive misunderstandings injected into community dialogues periodically, such as those discussed here suggesting that the use of a 4852 is inherently contradictory when one is rebutting an errant W-2.
Be a careful warrior. But also be a warrior illuminated in your knowledge, surefooted in your reasoning, and powerful in your confidence.
Visit the “Every Which Way But Loose” series to read fully-documented case studies of CtC-educated Americans dealing with tax agency misrepresentations such as those discussed above at http://losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLoose.htm
Enjoy especially revealing victories unhindered by bad agency behavior at http://losthorizons.com/tax/Highlights.htm
Spread the Liberating Truth about the Tax: See http://losthorizons.com/NewsletterFeaturePage.htm
Share your Victories for the Rule of Law: See http://losthorizons.com/NewsletterFeaturePage.htm
Get CtC for Free (and send it to everyone): See http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf
-
EDITORIAL: Comment on the lead post by a reader. We didn’t write this.
We don’t agree with his view of the Fourteenth Amendment. He obviously hasn’t read our:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
Here is the supreme Court cite from the above that PROVES that Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” ARE subject to THEIR jurisdiction:
Quote:“It is impossible to construe the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words ‘within its jurisdiction,’ in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons ‘within the jurisdiction’ of one of the states of the Union are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States[***].’”[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), emphasis added]
By “subject to THE jurisdiction above”, they mean the POLITICAL jurisdiction and NOT the “legislative jurisdiction”. He doesn’t understand the distinction between POLITICAL jurisdiction and LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction.
______________
I would point out that sovereignty and property are inseparable. Therefore to be eligible to exercise natural liberty, one needs a domicile (a permanent, legal home). An inhabitant is defined as one with a domicile, therefore all others (i.e., “residents”) are transients without a legal permanent home.
However the definition of private property is that which is absolutely owned by an individual. This leads me to conclude that impaired parties (or artificial persons like corporations) cannot absolutely own a permanent, legal home, and thus cannot be inhabitants.
Furthermore, citizenship is a step down in status. Proof can be found in the obligation of the militia to train, fight and die, on command. Obviously, the militia do not have inalienable rights to life, liberty, etc. However, the definition of the militia specifically mentions that they are citizens. If citizenship could be imposed at birth, the compulsory civic duties would be involuntary servitude, and unconstitutional in the united States of America (13th amendment). However, it appears that 14th amendment citizens are NOT born within the united States of America or territories subject to THEIR (plural) jurisdiction.
-
60 Minues interviewed OB last night about the murder of Osama by Obama. He covered up the evidence even more on the interview. He said:
1. He decided not to show pictures to avoid further retaliation from the terrorists.
2. The identities of the people on the seal team who went in and did the alleged dirty work were classified and he couldn't say who they were.
3. They were sure they had the right guy because they did DNA testing on the body. Why not release it?
4. The body was buried at sea to cover the evidence.
More smoke and mirrors.
-
Thanks.
The Babylon WHORE corporation is described in the following scripture. This scripture was the inspiration to unravel the golden robe that is dross for the last ten years:
Quote:Alas, sinful nation,A people laden with iniquity
A brood of evildoers
Children who are corrupters!
They have forsaken the Lord
They have provoked to anger
The Holy One of Israel,
They have turned away backward.
Why should you be stricken again?
You will revolt more and more.
The whole head is sick [they are out of their minds!: insane or STUPID or both],
And the whole heart faints….
Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes.
Cease to do evil,
Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor [the IRS and the Federal Reserve and a corrupted judicial system];
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow [and the ” nontaxpayer”]….
How the faithful city has become a harlot!
It [the Constitutional Republic] was full of justice;
Righteousness lodged in it,
But now murderers [and abortionists, and socialists, and democrats, and liars and corrupted judges].
Your silver has become dross,
Your wine mixed with water.
Your princes [President, Congressmen, Judges] are rebellious,
Everyone loves bribes,
And follows after rewards.
They do not defend the fatherless,
nor does the cause of the widow [or the “nontaxpayer”] come before them.
Therefore the Lord says,
The Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel,
“Ah, I will rid Myself of My adversaries,
And take vengeance on My enemies.
I will turn My hand against you,
And thoroughly purge away your dross,
And take away your alloy.
I will restore your judges [eliminate the BAD judges] as at the first,
And your counselors [eliminate the BAD lawyers] as at the beginning.
Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.”
[Isaiah 1:1-26, Bible, NKJV]
For details, see:
1. How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm
2. Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/CorpGovt.pdf
-
Frankin,
Thanks. But the kudos are undeserved. I wish we could take credit for it, but we can't. The post comes from:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/I-Am-Anti-Socialist/
This guy isn't anywhere near as literary, prolific, or technical as us, but he does a better job simplifying the KEY issues. You wouldn't find him in a courtroom arguing the issues, but you would definitely find him at a politcal rally, such as this:
http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/GanapowskiJeff/JeffGanaposki.htm
We focus on the courtroom but his skills are just as valuable in the political forum. The specific post from his forum that the article was derived from is:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/I-Am-Anti-Socialist/message/507
This guy is a huge fan of SEDM and has formulated or improved many of his ideas by reading SEDM materials. Some of his research, for instance, appears in the Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003, we are told. Iron is sharpening iron, obviously. We have recognized the value he can add to our materials from the first time he contacted our ministry and his research has been posted on this site from the very beginning, ten long years ago. Otherwise, we wouldn't have even known about him.
You can view him speaking at:
http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/GanapowskiJeff/JeffGanaposki.htm
Nevertheless, his article also appears in the following and hence, you have been beaten to the punch:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 5.2
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
We've been following his forum, and learned a lot from him so far about how to simplify our approach.
Thanks for your kudos and constructive feedback.
Admin 🙄
-
The other important points to extract from this are:
1. Any criminal jurisdiction alleged OUTSIDE of the areas specified is not authorized.
2. The only kind of jurisdiction they can exercise outside of said areas is PRIVATE/CONTRACT law that is CIVIL in nature.
3. If they try to enforce any allegedly “criminal” provision under 26 USC 7200-7217 outside of federal territory, then it is NOT criminal, but rather penal and civil in nature.
4. In order to enforce the penal provision, their burden of proof is to establish that:
4.1 You were physically present within their jurisdiction at one time.
4.2 You consented to remain in their jurisdiction and be protected by their laws by claiming to be a “resident” or filling out a “Resident” tax form.