fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Contact him yourself and find out:
http://www.constitutionalincome.com/
Post what you find out here.
-
Bing,
Welcome back.
1. Our position on NRAs has recently changed because the definition of “individual” at 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c)(3) has recently changed. Now the definition of “individual” includes ONLY aliens. As such, you are not an NRA unless you work for the US government on official business. This is covered in:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf2. Please stop calling yourself an NRA and confusing members of these forums unless you can prove the above wrong. Similarly, you aren’t a “U.S. person” under 26 USC 7701(a)(30) either, so please don’t call yourself that either. You are a “non-resident non-person” because you are neither:
2.1 a STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. 1401 nor
2.2 an “individual” under 8 CFR 1.1441-1(c)(3) and therefore “person” under 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(2)
How people become STATUTORY “persons” and therefore public officers is covered in:
Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Section 12
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm3. It is NOT strictly true that without implementing regulations the statute may not be enforced. Instead, in the absence of regulations, it may ONLY be enforced against public officers ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS in connection with their official duties, but not the general public. This is covered in:
Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm4. The reason for the above comes from the Federal Register Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. The only exceptions to the requirement for publication in the Federal Register of the statute and the implementing regulations are the groups specifically identified by Congress as expressly exempted from this requirement, as follows:
4.1. A military or foreign affairs function of the United States. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1) .
4.2. A matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) .
4.3. Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof. 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1).
All of the above requirements are also mentioned in 5 U.S.C. §301 (federal employees), which establishes that the head of an Executive or military department may prescribe regulations for the internal government of his department.
TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 3 > § 301
§ 301. Departmental regulations
The head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property. This section does not authorize withholding information from the public or limiting the availability of records to the public.
Based on the above, the burden of proof imposed upon the government at any due process meeting in which it is enforcing any provision is to produce at least ONE of the following TWO things:
1. Evidence signed under penalty of perjury by someone with personal, first-hand knowledge, proving that you are a member of one of the three groups specifically exempted from the requirement for implementing regulations, as identified above.
2. Evidence of publication in the Federal Register of BOTH the statute AND the implementing regulation which they seek to enforce against you.
If they won’t or can’t satisfy the above burden of proof, then the government is engaging literally in criminal identity theft as described in:
Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htmWithout satisfying one of the above two requirements, the government is illegally enforcing federal law and becomes liable for a constitutional tort. For case number two above, the federal courts have said the following enlightening things:
“…for federal tax purposes, federal regulations [rather than the statutes ONLY] govern.”
[Dodd v. United States, 223 F.Supp. 785]
________________________________________________________________________
“When enacting §7206(1) Congress undoubtedly knew that the Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws, so long as they carry into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the statutes. Such regulations have the force of law. The Secretary, however, does not have the power to make law, Dixon v. United States, supra.”
[United States v. Levy, 533 F.2d. 969 (1976)]
_________________________________________________________________________
“An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” While in practical effect regulations may be called “little laws,” 7 they are at most but offspring of statutes. Congress alone may pass a statute, and the Criminal Appeals Act calls for direct appeals if the District Court’s dismissal is based upon the invalidity or construction of a statute. See United States v. Jones, 345 U.S. 377 (1953). This Court has always construed the Criminal Appeals Act narrowly, limiting it strictly “to the instances specified.” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 192 (1939). See also United States v. Swift & Co., 318 U.S. 442 (1943). Here the statute is not complete by itself, since it merely declares the range of its operation and leaves to its progeny the means to be utilized in the effectuation of its command. But it is the statute which creates the offense of the willful removal of the labels of origin and provides the punishment for violations. The regulations, on the other hand, prescribe the identifying language of the label itself, and assign the resulting tags to their respective geographical areas. Once promulgated, [361 U.S. 431, 438] these regulations, called for by the statute itself, have the force of law, and violations thereof incur criminal prosecutions, just as if all the details had been incorporated into the congressional language. The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other.“
[U.S. v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431 (1960)]
_________________________________________________________________________
“…the Act’s civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of the regulation promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone…The Government urges that since only those who violate these regulations [not the Code] may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, and not the broad authorizing language of the statute, which are to be tested against the standards of the Fourth Amendment; and that when so tested they are valid.”
[Calif. Bankers Assoc. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 44, 39 L.Ed.2d. 812, 94 S.Ct. 1494]
_________________________________________________________________________
“Although the relevant statute authorized the Secretary to impose such a duty, his implementing regulations did not do so. Therefore we held that there was no duty to disclose…”
[United States v. Murphy, 809 F.2d. 142, 1431]
_________________________________________________________________________
“Failure to adhere to agency regulations [by the IRS or other agency] may amount to denial of due process if regulations are required by constitution or statute…”
[Curley v. United States, 791 F.Supp. 52]
Another very interesting observation is that the federal courts have essentially ruled that I.R.C. Subtitle A pertains exclusively to government employees, agents, and officers, when they said:
“Federal income tax regulations governing filing of income tax returns do not require Office of Management and Budget control numbers because requirement to file tax return is mandated by statute, not by regulation.”
[U.S. v. Bartrug, E.D.Va.1991, 777 F.Supp. 1290 , affirmed 976 F.2d. 727, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 1659, 507 U.S. 1010, 123 L.Ed.2d. 278]
Since there are no implementing regulations for most federal tax enforcement, the statutes which establish the requirement are only directly enforceable against those who are members of the groups specifically exempted from the requirement for implementing regulations published in the Federal Register as described above. This is also consistent with the statutes authorizing enforcement within the I.R.C. itself found in 26 U.S.C. §6331, which say on the subject the following:
26 U.S.C., Subchapter D – Seizure of Property for Collection of Taxes
Sec. 6331. Levy and distraint
(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.
We don’t care to repeat the content of Form #05.032 here. If you have further questions about this matter, please obtain and read this memorandum rather than forcing us to regurgitate it for you here. That would be a supreme waste of our valuable time that could be better spent on those who want to take greater responsibility for their own freedom and education.
-
1. We don’t support SFS processes or services on this website. If you have a question about their processes or services, you should ask them, and not us, and especially if you paid them money for the service. The questions you ask should have been asked BEFORE you engaged them, not after. Sending anyone money to help you before you have thorough documentation on what they do, why it it supposed to work, all the answers is probably not a good idea.
2. We don’t have a position on the Prison Bonds and don’t believe they are even relevant to a tort against the government for a violation of constitutional rights.
3. Those who want to engage us for help should do so ONLY using the processes documented in the following and must be a consenting member in good standing:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf4. You posted the question in a completely unrelated forum on this site, making it difficult to locate for people seeking similar help. We moved it to the correct forum after splitting it from the irrelevant topic you posted it under.
5. Claims for constitutional rights violations belong in state courts, not federal courts for the most part. Going straight to SCOTUS without starting in state court seems like a bad idea. The subject of the tort is unclear so its difficult to tell. Under the 11th amendment, federal courts cannot entertain suits against anyone BUT federal officers for constitutional violations, along with state officers under 42 U.S. 1983 if equal protection is violated.
6. People sometimes post in these forums to get help with litigation issues that are more properly handed by SEDM. They do this to avoid having to become SEDM members. You are probably better off posting your question in the appropriate forum on sedm.org, not here.
-
Trump tweets support of Second Amendment after Stevens’ call for repeal
-
Nearly a Third of Tech Workers Are Ready To #DeleteFacebook
-
Kamiron Freeman,
The bible says that people who focus on philosophy rather than REAL LAW from the Bible are an abomination. You should study law BEFORE you study philosophy:
One who turns away his ear from hearing the law,
Even his prayer is an abomination.
[Prov. 28:9, Bible, NKJV]“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”
[Col. 2:8, Bible, NKJV]
You have some rather unique views. We also appreciate the fact that as a non-christian, you find our materials worthy of attention. Many atheists dismiss Christianity as overly emotional, silly, or based on superstition rather than facts, which is far from the truth.
Problems with Atheistic Anarchism, Form #08.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/ProbsWithAtheistAnarchism.pdfFundamentally, your definition of “socialism” is wrong. Look it up in the dictionary, it is state ownership or control of ALL property. That means CENTRALIZATION, not DECENTRALIZATION, because property then becomes a means to control EVERYONE. This makes individual absolute ownership or control IMPOSSIBLE and decentralization therefore IMPOSSIBLE.
The reason that socialism results in slavery and not personal rights is that once the government has a monopoly on absolute ownership, then it uses that ownership to place conditions or restrictions on every conceivable human behavior. Control of the property becomes a method to implement civil franchises and exert TOTAL control over everyone. The basis of all civil franchises, in fact, is the LOAN of government property:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdfI also think you are overlooking the fact that in socialist systems, there is no true equality and republican government is IMPOSSIBLE. Republican government is based on NATURAL powers delegated by individual people to the collective. Socialism turns that upside down and because the state possesses a monopoly on absolute ownership, which means they have a power that was NOT delegated by the people because the people do not HAVE that power.
In a socialist system, there is the MOST EXTREME inequality possible between the government and the governed. In a republican system, the government and the governed are EQUAL and therefore, the government can never be tyrannical. Wolff seems to deliberately omit this VERY important concept, which is also explained in:
What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdfIf you want true decentralization, absolute ownership of private property is the ONLY way to implement it. Centralizing absolute ownership of all property with a socialist government leads to an unworkable economic system, as explained in the following video:
America’s Socialist Origins
https://sedm.org/americas-socialist-origins/Stick to our pamphlet on Socialism, which properly defines socialism and explains HOW the current government implements socialism through the welfare state and tax system. Its NOT what Wolff proposes and he has NO AUTHORITY to redefine a word that is already defined to make what he proposes LOOK better but accomplish the same very damaging results.
Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdfIt’s good that you are studying these things carefully to figure out the best business model for your new inherited business, which is much more than most people do. But your understanding of socialism is way off base and Wolff doesn’t have it right either. That’s why Form #05.016 above is necessary to get the PART of socialism (the BAD part) that Wolff conveniently doesn’t explain.
The main point you are missing is the evils of all collectivist systems, which are explained in:
1. Communism, Socialism, and Collectivism Topic
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Communism/Communism.htm
2. Collectivism and How to Resist it, Form #12.024
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/Collectivism.pdfThese forums are not intended as a didactic device to lead you through a personal education process. We do not have the resources to become your personal tutor. You need to diligently study the above concepts and authorities provided before you will realize the extreme bias, error, and cognitive dissonance that Wolff proposes. His system is completely impractical and is based on covetousness, discontentment, selfishness, and religious idolatry so it is unsustainable and will therefore be permeated by strife and eventually destroy itself. Do not proceed further with this discussion unless and until you have studied everything we mentioned so far carefully, including previous posts on the subject by us. As we said, you have much learning and study to do before you will completely understand the impracticality of both Wolff’s position and yours.
“It’s better to close your mouth and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
[Family Guardian]Please consider downloading and reading the free Path to Freedom, Form #09.015. It explains most of the flaws in your thinking as a relative newbie to this site. It saves you and us a ton of time coming up to speed:
Below is a good video that gives the OTHER side of what Wolff proposes, which of course would completely destroy the appeal of Wolff and explains why he refuses to discuss BOTH sides of the issue. I would like to see him debate the fellow in the video below:
Ten Things Millennials Should Know About Socialism, Thomas J. DiLorenzo -
JUDGE ANNA VON REITZ RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
All that presumes that the states are operational and have “state citizens” which for the most part, they do not. Down the road it may be necessary to teach people the difference between State Citizens and state nationals and all the rest of it, but if we don’t get Job One done—- which is to teach them to deny being *federal* citizens, the rest of it is moot.Believe me, it is less confusing for the Federales to just lay down the permanent domicile of all these fictitious Names/NAMES on the land and soil of California, for example, and let them know *you aren’t functioning as a “citizen” of any kind in their world. *The inanity of calling one’s self a *”non-resident non-person” *instead of *”private Natural Person”* — is apparent. So unless we want to go to La-La-Land and start calling each other names like “Moon Doggie Drip-Drip” in an effort to avoid these crooks, it’s time to (1) deny being “citizens” period in relation to any federal or federated state business or courts, because we are not “citizens” *in their system*, and (2) reclaim and declare the permanent domicile of all our names and their derivative NAMES on the land and soil of the State where we were born to *change the presumed jurisdiction and capacity* attached to the Name/NAMES.
John Michael Doe can be the Trade Name of a living man on the land or it can be a Foreign Situs Trust adrift on the sea.
JOHN MICHAEL DOE can be the name of a FOREIGN GRANTOR ESTATE TRUST operated as a British Crown franchise out of Puerto Rico or it can be the name of a private American State VESSEL from Vermont engaged in peaceful international trade. The difference is the domicile and the ownership of the *Trade Name*.
See attached diagram.
So for now, I want everyone to stop claiming to be “citizens” unless they are actually federal citizens. And I want everyone to claim back their “missing” Trade Names and get back to shore. That is Job One. All the rest of it, all the “fine detail” and all the shambala of sorting out “state citizens” and “State Citizens” and “State of State Citizens” and
“STATE OF STATE CITIZENS” will just have to wait. -
OUR RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE SENT TO ANNA VON REITZ:
Anna,
Great article.
It does, however, create more confusion than it resolves, because it doesn’t distinguish between CONSTITUTIONAL citizens of STATUTORY citizens, which is crucial. It also tells people to call themselves a non-citizen national, which then unjustly confuses them with 8 USC 1408 “non-citizen nationals” and people in US possessions. Not a good idea.
A better approach is to have your students call themselves “non-resident non-persons” or CONSTITUTIONAL citizens at the time of birth and not STATUTORY citizens.
We clarify this in:
Why You Are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf -
The new Constitution.famguardian.org site is fully up. The site contains all the content that the original Constitution.org site had when it went offline about 6 weeks ago. Took two weeks of full time effort but the job is at the 1.0 stage now.
-
After about 5 days in existence, the new Constitution Society website doesn’t yet show up in any of the search engines. It will take time to crawl.
-
The site is now back online at:
-
We just talked with Constitutional attorney Larry Becraft, who has been friends with Jon Roland for many years. He doesn’t have contact information for Jon but says that:
1. Jon tasked he and his group of freedom researchers to preserve his work.
2. Some of his own work was posted on the Constitution.org site.
3. The group that Jon tasked with preserving his site has been wondering what happened to Jon and has been unable to contact or locate him.
4. The group was worried how to bring the site back online.
5. Larry was delighted that we were equally concerned and had the ability to resurrect the site. Back in 2006, we downloaded the ENTIRE site and have a copy of it, just in case it went down.
6. He said if we wanted to bring the site back online, he would be delighted and would even share the hosting fees to keep it online. We said we were interested and he said that we had his blessing.
We therefore have decided to bring the site back online. This will take several weeks of work, and we won’t charge for it.
-
Update on the status of Jon Roland, 2/23/18:
We just heard from a friend of Jon Roland. They received a text message from his nurse. He is in the Hospital in Texas waiting for a new heart. His has given up.
He isn’t available via the Internet and his nurse is protective of him. He may not make it. This explains why the several emails and phone messages we tried didn’t get through.
If you want to call him before he departs this Earth, you can reach him at the VA Hospital in San Antonio, Texas.
https://www.southtexas.va.gov/
Our prayers are with him in his pursuit for a new heart and the ensuing transplant, if he gets that far.
-
Here’s how, and why, the Spectre and Meltdown patches will hurt performance
Now that microcode and patches are starting to ship, a clearer picture is emerging.
Peter Bright – 1/11/2018, 1:30 PM -
Meltdown and Spectre: Here’s what Intel, Apple, Microsoft, others are doing about it
Intel, Microsoft, ARM, and others have responded. We dig in.