fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Franklin,
Fantastic! Thanks.
-
Zygmunt v. Fulmer, Case: 10-2486, (Dist.Ct., New Jersey)(2011)
At the outset, the Court notes that the Complaint is mostly incomprehensible and poorly organized, with references to international law, admiralty, and agents of foreign governments, even though no issues of admiralty and no presence of foreign nationals appear to be involved. However, based on documents that the Plaintiff attached to his Complaint, the Court understands that Plaintiff's grievance arises from a single demand for underpayment of state income tax by Defendant, who is the Acting Director of the Division of Taxation, Department of Treasury, the State of New Jersey.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13921130446942300676&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=20002&as_vis=1&oi==alrt&cd=0
-
SOURCE: http://beforeitsnews…9_11,_Iraq.html
CIA Asset Susan Lindauer blows the whistle on 9/11, Iraq
Monday, January 10, 2011 10:20
Susan Lindauer, author of Extreme Prejudice, is the first CIA asset to have spoken out, under her own name and for the record, on Israeli complicity in 9/11, the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and the specific, detailed foreknowledge of the time, target, and means of the 9/11 attacks held throughout the months prior to 9/11 by the CIA in general and Lindauer’s CIA handler, Richard Fuisz, in particular. She has also exposed her first-hand knowledge of pre-war intelligence and negotiations showing that Iraq was willing to give the US “anything it asked” and that the war was therefore–from the perspective of US interests–not only utterly unnecessary, but wildly counterproductive. Lindauer’s evidence points strongly to 9/11 being a coup d’etat by hard-line Zionists determined to steer the US into a self-destructive war on Israel’s enemies.
Listen to my complete interview with Susan Lindauer here. Below is a transcript of the first half of the interview.
Barrett
I understand that you had some 9/11 foreknowledge, but were actually busted for trying to explain to the Bush Administration through your cousin Andrew Card, that invading Iraq was insane, that the Iraqis were basically going to do anything we wanted anyway–they’ll agree to anything for peace–and that there would be a terrible resistance and a terrible war if there was an invasion. And for that very accurate and prescient warning, they went after you.
Lindauer
Well, you have a very good grasp of this issue, I will tell you. It is a complicated story. I was one of the very few (CIA) assets covering Iraq before the war. And I had established contact with the Iraqi embassy at the United Nations in New York back in August of 1996. And for seven years before the invasion, I was what they call a “back channel” to Iraq on the question of terrorism. That was my foremost priority. This was covert in the sense that it was covert to the West. But the Iraqis were fully informed as to who I was and what I was doing and what my purpose was. My motivation was that I hated the United Nations sanctions. I hated the genocidal consequences and suffering for the Iraqi people, most truly and genuinely–that was very sincere. And they knew it. And both sides knew my politics. In fact, the CIA had come to me knowing my politics and said “hey, why don’t you try to help us.” They co-opted me–they did–but I agreed to be co-opted. We all understood each other. And that’s very important for what happened.
Barrett
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. There is a role for people who are intermediaries between warring parties and who try to make peace. And it sounds like that’s what you were doing.
Lindauer
Yes indeed. And both sides understood my politics, that I wanted to help end the sanctions. And the CIA was very adamant that Iraq had to meet certain criteria in order for that to happen. And my contribution from the very first days was on terrorism. Our team started what we called preliminary talks with Baghdad in November of 2000, two years before the United Nations got involved. Our team started back channel talks to get Iraq’s agreement on the weapons inspections. And over the next fifteen months, my supervisor, Richard Fuisz (pronounced “fuse”), through talks at the Iraqi embassy, mostly with Iraq’s ambassador Dr. Sayeed Hassan, and with other senior Iraqi diplomats, on what conditions Iraq would have to accept in order to resume the weapons inspections. And at that point we had begun to develop a comprehensive peace framework which extended great support to anti-terrorism. Iraq agreed to let the FBI come into Baghdad and operate a task force that would have authority–this was before 9/11 ever happened! Nine months before 9/11 happened, Iraq agreed to have the FBI come into Baghdad with the authority to conduct terrorism investigations, interview witnesses, make arrests. After 9/11, Iraq agreed to give financial records on al-Qaeda to the United States. BUT the United states didn’t want to take the records.
Barrett
It makes you wonder why not.
Lindauer
Isn’t that an interesting question.
Barrett
It leads me to (my next question): You apparently had some kind of foreknowledge of 9/11. Can you explain to us what that was?
Lindauer
Yes. This is a very interesting thing, and I’m glad…I hope your audience will pay attention to this. We absolutely expected 9/11 to happen. And there’s a subtlety here that I hope your audience will appreciate. In April and May of 2001 I was summoned to my CIA handler’s office and told that I needed to confront the Iraqi diplomats at the United Nations, through my back channel, with a demand for any fragment of intelligence regarding airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings. And over the summer, that progressed to a deep belief that there was going to be an airplane hijacking attack, and some sort of aerial strike, on the World Trade Center. We talked about this in our one-on-one meetings practically every week. Just so we are clear, this was not a one-time conversation. This was a major focus of our efforts. Richard (Fuisz, Lindauer’s CIA handler) was very worried about it, very agitated about it, how Iraq must give us this intelligence. Now, I don’t mean to patronize you, but I’m sure you’re familiar with the concept of deniability. I do not think that Richard Fuisz knew all the details of 9/11. However, he knew enough. My book Extreme Prejudice goes into the conversations that we had in great detail. And he knew the timing of the attack. By August 2001, Richard was telling me not to go into New York City because this attack was immanent. And on the day of FBI Director Robert Mueller’s confirmation hearings, which I think was August 2nd–in my book it’s very clear, I’ve checked all the dates–Richard Fuisz told me that the attack was immanent. And I said, well, I’m going up to New York to ask my Iraqi sources about this again. And he said “Don’t go to New York, it’s too dangerous, I don’t want you going there again.” And I said “I’m just going up this weekend, and I promise I will not go back to New York.” And that’s how close this was. They knew a great deal. And what was interesting is that after 9/11, I get arrested, and he gets thirteen million dollars in payoffs. (laughs)
Barrett
(laughing) Oh boy. That’s amazing. They arrested you, because they were probably concerned about you revealing the contents of your conversations with Richard, among other things.
Lindauer
Oh yes, absolutely. And the fact that there was a peace option on the table that had been developed over a two year period before the war, a comprehensive peace framework. It included cooperation on anti-terrorism; it included the weapons inspections, of course–you already knew that; and it included Iraq’s commitment to donate economic reconstruction–donate is not the right word–to dedicate economic reconstruction contracts to United States corporations with preferential treatment, preferential contracts in telecommunications, health care, pharmaceuticals, and transportation. This was a comprehensive peace framework! We covered everything! We covered a lot. And nobody even knows about this!
Barrett
That’s amazing. There have been general reports of this nature, including post-9/11, right up to the eve of the invasion, there have been reports that Saddam Hussein was willing to give the US basically everything it wanted to hold off the invasion.
Lindauer
Yes. Yes.
Barrett
That leads to the question: Why do you think, given that you recognize just how insane this invasion was, how completely unnecessary–the Iraqis were caving as far as they had to cave anyway–what was the point?
Lindauer
Yes, literally, Iraq said to me: “What is it the United States wants? Anything that the United States asks for, we will give them. Just tell us what it is!” When I was on a trip to Baghdad, they offered to buy one million American-made automobiles every year for ten years. And (an Iraqi diplomat) said to me, “Look, Susan, if ten years isn’t enough, we’ll make it twenty years.”
Barrett
You know, Susan, you’re kind of ruining Saddam Hussein’s posthumous reputation as somebody who stood up to the U.S.!
Lindauer
He was more harsh on terrorists than we were.
Barrett
He didn’t get along with al-Qaeda, and he didn’t get along with Islamists of any kind, including the Iranians.
Lindauer
That’s right.
Barrett
You would have thought that the U.S. would have just kept running him as an American puppet. He got his start as a CIA hit man, apparently.
Lindauer
Yes indeed.
Barrett
So why, why this insane insistence on going to war with Iraq–a war that has killed one and a half million innocent Iraqis and destroyed that country. What was the purpose of it?
Lindauer
It was so incredibly stupid. And 9/11…9/11 could have been used at the start…9/11 was a tragedy, a terrible, terrible tragedy, but 9/11 could have accomplished great good. Because right after 9/11 Iraq went into high mode of giving. They were offering us everything we wanted: Financial records on al-Qaeda, proof of a Middle Eastern link to what we used to call the inter-Arab group of terrorists, which was actually an amalgamation of several different terrorist factions, coalesced into al-Qaeda. They were willing to prove that there was a Middle Eastern link to the Oklahoma City bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center, and those included financial documents, bank records…we could have tracked the money that’s financing terrorism around the world. Instead what we do is, we create an enemy. Because it looks better–the politicians could go grandstand. As a former (CIA) asset I can assure you, they don’t actually do anything on terrorism. They give speeches. They go wave their hands in the parades. But they don’t do anything to contribute to anti-terrorism efforts. But the people have been fooled by their showmanship and their grandstanding and their spectacle. It’s like a circus performance now! In fact, before 9/11, there were 200 to 300 terrorists in the world who wanted to attack America. Now, after 9/11 and after the war in Iraq and after the war on Afghanistan, there are only about 2000 to 3000 individuals whose entire focus of life is revenge and coming into the United States and attacking us. That’s only 3000 people. The way I look at it, this is like a high school auditorium that you could fill with the potential terrorists. That’s it! This is an invention! We’ve made this up!
Barrett
Right. Very well put. I’ve often explained to people that there was no real terrorist threat pre-9/11, and that for every one person pre-9/11 who was bent on doing harm to the US, there must be a great many today, because of all the terrible things that have gone on since 9/11.
Lindauer
Yes.
Barrett
So the question then, is…is it just sheer total incompetence and stupidity and grandstanding and egotism–I’m sure all of that contributes to it, but—uh…well, frankly, Susan, my take on all of this is that 9/11 was a Mossad operation, that it was of course done through Cheney’s office. There were no hijackings. The guys that they blamed for it were not terrorists at all. They weren’t even on the planes. There is not a shred of evidence that any of these guys were on those planes, nor is there a shred of actual evidence that there were any hijackings. Instead, we had a military operation that was essentially a Zionist coup d’état by the Likkud faction that wanted to destroy Iraq so it would never be a threat to Israel. A prosperous Iraq, allied to the US, would actually be terrible for Israel. That’s why they wouldn’t take the deals that you were brokering. Care to comment?
Lindauer
I think that you are–I do believe in the hijackings, but I believe in everything else that you have just said. One of the things that came out right after 9/11: I’ve often been asked by people what my CIA handler Richard Fuisz’s source was for the 9/11 attack. And he told me briefly, he let it slip. Immediately after the attack, when we were all in a state of shock, he said to me…the first building had collapsed, but it was before the second building collapsed. This is a very important time frame. He made reference to video tape, which by the way was not released to the public until the next day, but right after 9/11 Richard Fuisz already knows about this video tape! Right after the attack–the first building has collapsed, the second one is still standing–and we’re both talking in the living room, we’re both shouting–I’m in my living room, he’s in his living room, and we’re shouting at the televisions–and he blurts out to me: “Susan, how many times do you think a camera is cued up waiting for a car accident to occur?” He said, “What do you think are the odds that those two people were just standing on the sidewalk with a video camera waiting patiently for the plane to hit the building?” And he said, “Those are Mossad agents. They knew that the World Trade Center was about to get hit, and they were waiting there for it to happen so they could record it and put it out in the media.” Now this is before it has even come out in the media. He identifies them as Mossad agents, and I believe–I’m convinced–that that was the source of our knowledge of al-Qaeda. But what you guys don’t know, which I will throw out to you, which comes out in my book, is that from April and May of 2001 onwards, Richard Fuisz instructed me to threaten the Iraqis with war. Now everybody assumes that the war stuff came after 9/11. But it didn’t. They had decided months before 9/11 ever happened that as soon as this attack occurred, this would be the motivation for the war. So they absolutely knew that this attack was coming. They knew that it was going to be in late August or September. And that opens up a whole new dynamic proving what you have just said: That it was a Mossad conspiracy, that there was complicity…maybe that’s a better word, complicity…I’m going to go a little softer on the language than you. Mossad complicity.
Barrett
I would argue that it’s a little more than complicity–that the demolitions of the three tallest buildings ever taken down in controlled demolitions required immense skill and military specialization and so on…
Lindauer
Oh yes, when I say complicity, I include that in it. Yes. I believe in the detonations. In fact…do I have time to tell you one story before break?
Barrett
Tell it, go for it.
Lindauer
While I was writing my book, I had a high-ranking State Department official, who has a very very high, top-top-top security classification, and I cannot name him for you because I don’t want to hurt his reputation. He’s close to retirement, he’s going to have a pension–they would crush him if he was ever exposed, I suspect. He thinks it too. He says that a couple of weeks before 9/11, at the end of August, for about two weeks, strange vans were arriving at the World Trade Center at three o’ clock in the morning. They were staying from about three o’ clock to about four-thirty or five. They were coming in for a brief period. And he swore to me that he personally had investigated the janitorial services, and he said “I know first hand how many employees the janitorial service had, what their trucks looked like, what their revenues were like, where they lived.” He said “we know the addresses.” We are confident that none of the people from the janitorial services were tied to these trucks. It had never happened before, it was a unique thing. This was not a constant thing like over a six month period. It was a strange anomaly right before (the attack on) the World Trade Center. And he was convinced that this was government-level thermite, government-level weapons, that had been put into either the stairwells or the elevator shafts. And he is convinced that this is when it happened.
-
Pete Hendrickson terminated accounts of those who argue with him on his Lost Horizons forums and then removed all their posts. He never used the criticisms of other to improve or modify his materials.
We, on the other hand, use criticism of others to IMPLEMENT improvements on this site and make further criticism unnecessary. To leave the criticism in these forums would make the discussion of the problem in our materials irrelevant and confusing AFTER the improvements are implemented. Therefore, we sometimes go back and edit our posts to make them relevant ONLY to what is currently posted on the website and not what was posted in the past, or else our readers get confused and avoid this site entirely. This is necessary because unlike other forums, we keep older posts and materials and yet seek to make them CONTINUE to be relevant as the rest of the site changes. The forums you are reading here are over 7 years old, and yet they continue to be relevant because we continue to update them, update expired links, and improve even older posts of ours as we go to minimize confusion and steepen the learning curve. It looks bad and makes us look like whackos when people compare read materials currently on this site and our older posts in these forums and then compare them with newer posts and find contradictions. This creates unnecessary cognitive dissonance but making it appear that we contradict even ourselves.
People remark frequently that there is too much information on this site. Having unnecessarily long arguments about a subject doesn't address that criticism. The approach you claim to dislike is the only effective way we have of addressing it, and yet even that isn't enough. Some people are never happy.
There is no evil intent and certainly no censorship. After the criticism has been implemented, there is no reason to leave it in the forum because it accomplished its purpose, which was the case with what you indicated, for instance.
On the other hand, if the purpose for your participation in these forums is NOT to ensure that people receive the truth as quickly as possible, but to ensure that:
1. You are RIGHT.
2. You have won an argument.
3. You are somehow BETTER than the person you are arguing with.
. . .then that is a pride issue that has nothing to do with helping people. If that is the reason for your participation, then you don't belong here. The only reason you are supposed to be here is to help people converge quickly on the truth, and the best way to do that is to minimize the effort they have to expend to understand it with the fewest contradictions.
Quote:” God resists the proud,But gives grace to the humble.”
[James 4:6, Bible, NKJV]
If you have a better way to implement the goals indicated above, please post them here. Most of the time, it seems that you would rather be RIGHT, than be HELPFUL. Maybe this discussion will be a rare exception to that disturbing approach.
-
Because you were arguing a position that we agree with and we changed our post to agree with it so that:
1. This forum doesn't go on and on and converges to a swift conclusion.
2. We don't contradict other materials on this site.
3. We don't contradict ourselves and therefore cause cognitive dissonance that will scare readers away.
-
The I-9 form on SEDM takes the approach we both agreed to:
I-9 Form Amended, Form #06.028
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/i-9Amended.pdf
It:
1. Replaces “citizen of the United States” with “CONSTITUTIONAL citizen of the United States per attached Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, form #02.001”.
2. Defines the term “CONSTITUTIONAL citizen of the United States” in the definitions as someone who is NOT a statutory citizen of the United States per 8 USC 1401, 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ), and 26 USC 3121(e).
3. Replaces the word “employer” with “company” to avoid being confused with a statutory “employer”.
4. Replaces the word “employee” with “worker” to avoid being confused with a statutory federal “employee” per 26 USC 3401(c ).
-
Nearly all federal civil law attaches ONLY to those with a domicile on federal territory. This is confirmed by:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons,Form #05.037
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…StatLawGovt.pdf
There are a few exceptions. For instance, 42 U.S.C. 1983 is an example of a statute that attaches to CONSTITUTIONAL rather than STATUTORY citizens/residents, and it implements the Fourteenth Amendment. This is confirmed in:
Section 1983 Litigation, Litigation Tool #08.008
http://sedm.org/Liti…on/LitIndex.htm
Anything that mandates a DUTY is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment for those protected by the Constitution and therefore can and does attach ONLY to public officers within the government. You have to first volunteer for the office to be subject to the statute imposing the duty and to be the “person” or “taxpayer” who is the proper subject.
Any state statute that regulates a franchise, such as the family code, the vehicle code, or the professional code, attaches to federal territory and therefore is the equivalent of a federal statute. That is what our Government Instituted Slavaery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, concludes. The “person” who is the subject of all such statutes is a public officer domiciled on federal territory.
De jure states do have statutes, but it's easier simply to invoke equity, sovereign immunity, and the common law than to try to remember all the statutes. The minute one invokes a civil statute, they usually imply that they are a public officer. The definitions will tell one who the “person” is, and it is almost always a public officer in the national government. For example, see 26 USC 6671(b) and 26 USC 7343.
The common law is sufficient and can be invoked in any court for the protection of PRIVATE rights. Civil statutes protect on PUBLIC rights and therefore franchises.
We don't have an answer to your last question. Don't know.
The subject of your question is further discussed in:
WHY YOU SHOULDN'T CITE FEDERAL STATUTES AS AUTHORITY FOR PROTECTING YOUR RIGHTS
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Discrimination/CivilRights/DontCiteFederalLaw.htm
-
I didn't recommend going to that site for spirutual advice. Only whether corporations are being sociallly responsible. John Perkins recommended the site during an interview with him by Natural News, and he seemed credible. I didn't look at the site carefully enough, apparently.
-
NO GOVERNMENT FORM is acceptable if it does not define the terms AND which of the two separate and mutually exclusive contexts is implied for each geographic term: Statutory or Constitutional. The purpose for modifying or adding to any government form is to remedy this chief defect of EVERY government form. That has already been well-established and agreed to by you.
Title 8 refers to the Constitutional context. Title 26 refers to the Statutory context. Companies hiring workers always PRESUME the two contexts are equivalent, just as they also wrongfully PRESUME that there is no legal difference between DOMICILE and NATIONALITY. Government koolaid ensures that they don't understand these distinctions so they make good “useful idiots” and federal employee recruiters.
The person who receives and processes the I-9 form at any company is an HR person who works usually primarily with payroll and who therefore functions ONLY in the statutory context, but who PRESUMES the constitutional context.
There IS harm is associating oneself with “alien authorized to work” status. As I already showed in the other thread on this subject, the only types of aliens who need such authorization, from a national government perspective, are CONSTITUTIONAL aliens. Statutory aliens need no authorization and are NOT necessarily “Privileged”. Only constitutional aliens are privileged. This was pointed out in the Law of Nations, which talks ONLY about CONSTITUTIONAL aliens:
Quote:“Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizen of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.” [The Law of Nations, Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 213, p. 87]There is no check box on the form for:
“Statutory but not constitutional alien who needs no authorization to work”
. . .and which explains the distinctions between statutory and constitutional alienage. Hence, one MUST clarify the context so it is not misunderstood. A failure to do so could result in all kinds of unwanted discrimination, extra attention at airports, accusations of perjury, and possibly even being fired if one is a military officer because military officers are not allowed to be constitutional aliens.
Four statuses are proffered on the stock I-9 form:
1. “A citizen of the United States”
2. “A noncitizen national of the United States”
3. “A lawful permanent resident (Alien#)”
4. “An alien authorized to work (Alien # or Admission #)”
The closest one to what a state citizen is would be is #1 above, but that option doesn't clarify WHICH of the three “United States” are implied. Hence, the modified form clarifies that to ensure it is not confused with the statutory “national and citizen of the United States” found in 8 U.S.C. 1401 or “citizen” found in 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ) and thereby connected with exclusive federal jurisdiction.
http://sedm.org/Form…/i-9Amended.pdf
The instructions for the form rule out the “noncitizen national of the United States” option with the following language:
Quote:“Noncitizen nationals of the United States are persons born in American Samoa, certain former citizens of the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and certain children of noncitizen nationals born abroad.”If they were honest and presented all the possible options, they would also add the following additional citizenship options, but they conveniently omit these options because they want to illegally recruit more “taxpayers”.
1. a “noncitizen national”
2. Other:_________________
The method of “authorizing” a CONSTITUTIONAL alien to “work” is the green card and the Alien # demanded in the two alien options above. If you check either “alien” option, now they are going to ask for a green card that a non-citizen national who is a statutory but not constitutional alien DOES NOT need. And, the minute one fills this form out and sends this to DHS, you are singled out for privileged treatment and expected to have a green card and subject to additional discrimination when travelling. This is STUPID.
Furthermore, for people such as yourself who are military officers, you are compromising your eligibility for office because constitutional aliens are not eligible to be military officers and you are creating prima facie evidence on a federal government form that you are a constitutional alien without even bothering to clarify the submission well enough to prevent that usually false presumption.
And HERE is what DHS is going to do to you if you claim to be an alien on the I9 form. They will PRESUME, absent clarification, that you are a CONSTITUTIONAL alien and then enforce the following. The “U.S. citizen” they are talking about is a statutory but not constitutional U.S. citizen who is a public officer and domicilary of the federal zone. They also mention a “U.S. passport”, but the one they issue says USA passport on the cover. The only ones who get “U.S. passports” are people domiciled on federal territory. Passports issued to public officers in the government for work purposes are RED, while those issued to private human beings are BLUE. I don't have proof, but it is my belief that the RED passport is the “U.S. passport” and the BLUE passport is NOT a “U.S. passport”, but a “USA passport”.
Quote:8 cfr 235(b)U.S. citizens.
A person claiming U.S. citizenship must establish that fact to the examining officer's satisfaction and must present a U.S. passport if such passport is required under the provisions of 22 CFR part 53. If such applicant for admission fails to satisfy the examining immigration officer that he or she is a U.S. citizen, he or she shall thereafter be inspected as an alien.
(d) Alien applicants for admission.
(1) Each alien seeking admission at a United States port-of-entry must present whatever documents are required and must establish to the satisfaction of the inspecting officer that the alien is not subject to removal under the immigration laws, Executive Orders, or Presidential Proclamations, and is entitled, under all of the applicable provisions of the immigration laws and this chapter, to enter the United States.
Lastly, you may want to go back and review the previous discussion on this subject so we don't have to reargue the same tired dead points:
http://famguardian.o…?showtopic=1681
-
The lead post was not written by us. We reposted it. We do, in fact, agree with your perspective on this. What they are doing is unconstitutional ONLY in the sense that:
1. It is limited to federal territory, those domiciled on federal territory, and those lawfully engaged in public offices in the U.S. government, but the judiciary refuses to both recognize and enforce this constraint.
2. They are abusing franchises as a means to create new public offices in the government, which they have no delegated authority to do.
3. They have abused franchises as a method of making a profitable business out of alienating rights that are supposed to be UNALIENABLE, thus making the civic temple into a WHOREHOUSE, just like jesus flipped the tables over for when they did the same thing in the temple.
4. The previous above abuses have caused a complete destruction of the separation of powers and equal protection that are the foundation of the United States Constitution.
That's as simple as it gets. And until it can be reduced to that level, it can never be truly understood, much less fixed.
We loved your colorful metaphor about “lard butts”. Way to go.
-
Article III is only relevant to federal questions and has absolutely no meaning in the context of state courts. Family issues are not typically a federal question and must be litigated in state courts. Every state has a different constitution and each constitution separately and differently creates courts within their jurisdictions. This is described in:
SEDM Jurisdictions Database, Litigation Tool #10.010
http://sedm.org/Liti…on/LitIndex.htm
What you probably mean is CONSTITUTIONAL court rather than STATUTORY FRANCHISE court. On that issue, the resources in the following are useful in litigating under the common law:
Sovereignty and Freedom Page
http://famguardian.o…dom/Freedom.htm
In particular, see sections 7 and 8.3 of the above.
We also caution that the place our members are nonresident in respect to is federal territory and not constitutional states of the Union.
We caution all new members and readers that unto he who much is given, much is expected. The more you demand from these forums, the more we are going to expect in return. You have to make a few deposits to the emotional bank account before withdrawals will receive the kind of response you probably expect. The golden rule dictates that you can only deserve what you are willing to give and earn. That's the foundation of what it means to be sovereign.
-
You can't ask questions in that form. That's legal advice. Please follow the protocol for asking questions:
-
A nonresident sovereign cannot petition a franchise court. The only place a sovereign can go is in equity to a constitutional court. This means going into the regular superior court under equity and the common law and NOT quoting a franchise agreement such as the family code because:
1. It can only be enforced against those domiciled on federal territory. Otherwise, it involves an alienation of rights that are unalienable.
2. It can only pertain to those ALREADY occupying a public office at the time the application for the license was signed.
-
Dave,
Welcome.
Your situation is common among members. It often isn't until men get abused by the family FRANCHISE courts that they finally wake up to the matrix they put themselves in by getting a marriage license. That PECKER of yours is a dangerous weapon, and you need permission from the state to “EMPLOY” it. The license amounts to HOLE PROTECTION INSURANCE.
The genesis of this site was a person who was forced into the very situation you find yourself in now. The site was created precisely out of a sincere desire to prevent the kind of situation you find yourself in by people who had experienced it themselves, in fact.
We don't get directly involved in family law issues and focus more on PREVENTIVE rather than CORRECTIVE approaches to the family court issues. The Sovereign Christian Marriage book prevents the kind of situation you find yourself in and is useful to someone like when you remarry, if that ever happens. Having your gonads hammered by a feminist socialist judge tends to make men avoid LICENSED remarriage.
http://sedm.org/Item…ianMarriage.htm
The marriage license fiasco can be defeated using:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/Franchises.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
But we know of no forms useful in applying that information directly to the family law issue. You will have to do that your self. Please feel free to post the tools you develop as you do it, if you decide to.
As far as making one's children sovereign, it's harder to do without support of the spouse and probably pointless until they reach adulthood and are persuadable and beyond the influence of a sadistic spouse.
It's generally a VERY bad idea to put one's full name in these forums, because it compromises one's privacy. We discourage it. This is a high profile website and the most valuable asset in being sovereign is privacy.
-
Wow. So I guess we have to lose our morality in order to gain our nationality. Not only do we have to lose our morality, but we have to call what gays are doing moral because.
1. The main criteria which determines whether foreigners can become naturalized is “good moral character”. The laws of a society determine the morals of a society. Whatever the law does not forbid, or permits, or even advances and subsidizes is presumed to be “moral”.
http://famguardian.o…ityUniverse.htm
2. The purpose of forming government is to protect the PRIVATE public health, safety, and morals. This desire is the foundation of the police powers of any government. Putting a bunch of thieves and fags in charge of protecting the public morals is the gravest of ironies.
Very sad.
Here are some comments received from us by others about this. We don't share these views, but we wanted you to be aware of an alternative way to look at it. The commentary comes from an atheist who keeps believers honest:
Quote:It's good that the government is promoting the gay lifestyle because:1. It makes those who have defective morals self-extinguish their gene pool. No wars necessary. This belongs on the Darwin Awards website.
2. If the majority of gays are men, it makes easier picking for the remaining heterosexual men.
3. Since the majority are democrats, it takes them out of the gene pool and the voting pool so that America becomes more republican.
4. God allowed them to be born without capacity to perpetuate. It also may be they are the first sacrificed as a consequence of overpopulation
5. It morally cleans the society and makes it self-correcting. No soap necessary.
6. Their seed will dry in short time. Our (heterosexual) seed is still juicy. Have you done your job of “being fruitful and multiplying” as god asked of you latetly?
7. Why would I want to help the crooked propagate by enforcing my morals upon them?
Sounds good to me!
In retort to the above:
We don't think that God allowed gays to be born without the capacity of procreation. It was the consequence, in most cases, of the exercise of the free will of both them and the people who raised them. The choices those people made and the society they grew up in made, the single parent family they were raised in, and the legal environment that perpetuated and expanded it is the real source of the problem. It is a scientific fact that homosexuality is more prevalent in single parent familes than in heterosexual families.
If gays at least BEHAVED more morally, then they would be far less likely to promote the expansion of government. Gays don't have families so they must go on the government welfare net instead of being taken care of by their offspring. This unavoidably expands the role of government and causes the government to have to STEAL more from those who aren't gays and who have family to take care of them. If there was no government socialist welfare net to take care of these people, their choice to be gay wouldn't matter, but because there is, it affects everyone adversely and financially. Why should non-gays be financially punished for the choices and consequences of those who are gay?
Every SINFUL choice people make affects the WHOLE community, not just those who engage in the SIN. The problem with atheists is that they are selfish and don't consider the larger whole. The bible requires greater social responsibility than most atheists would condone or implement.