[fg_admin]

prollins,

What you did is exactly what is suggested in the following. Bless your heart for taking our challenge SERIOUSLY:

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 7.4

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…thToFreedom.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/index.htm

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences and observations. They are consistent with many of our members and even ourself. The truth has become “politically incorrect” and we have become a “society of policy” instead of a “society of men” as the founding fathers intended. This was exactly what happened in Jesus' time, in which the Pharisees substituted the “commentments of men” in the place of God's law. The Bible talks about the fate of such people:

Quote:

“One who turns his ear from hearing the law /i] [i]God's law or [url url=”http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef/LegalResrchSrc.htm”]man's law[/url, even his prayer is an abomination.”

[Prov. 28:9, Bible, NKJV]

According to God, they are Pharisee hypocrites and if they are Christians, even their prayers and by implication, their religion and their churches are “an abomination”. This subject is thoroughly justified and explained using the bible itself in:

Policy Document: Corruption Within Modern Christianity, Form #08.012

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…hristianity.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

The truth may “set you free” as Jesus indicated, but it will also cause division and set you apart from the majority of the IDIOTS who think they know everything and who in fact are nothing but presumptuous “useful idiots” for tyrant socialists. That division and “sanctification” explains why you experienced what you experienced.

George Orwell was right. He was just a few years too early in his book “1984”. Truth is falsehood. Good is bad. A corporation is a government. Government is god. See:

http://famguardian.o…George/1984.htm

You can know you are on the right track when even attempting a response to the truths and evidence on this website:

1. Implicates them criminally.

2. Produces nothing but silence and avoidance, which in the legal field means AGREEMENT per Fed.Rule.Civ.Procedure 8(b)(6).

3. Causes them to look like a fool, a liar, and an idiot because no matter how they answer, they will contradict themselves or the evidence or both.

4. Creates a huge obligation on their part to actually DO something about it and leave their comfortable little deck chair on the sinking titanic.

If you are a chess player, the above is called “CHECKMATE!”.

God bless you for your commitment to the truth. We wish there were a LOT more people like you.

[fg_admin]

SOURCE: As received today from Pete Hendrickson.

______________________________

With The Media And The Country In A State Of Transformation,

We Truth-Tellers Can't Afford To Miss The Moment

It's not possible for me to adequately describe the potential significance of honest media coverage of CtC's revelations; or of honest coverage of the immediate, fearless, adamant and ongoing implementation of that liberating and Constitution-upholding information by Americans from all walks of life, all across the country. Nor is it possible for me to describe the potential significance of honest coverage of the increasingly desperate and draconian efforts to suppress that information and discourage that implementation by federal and state governments.

Happily, I don't need to describe these things. You all understand how significant such coverage would be to our task of revitalizing the restraints on out-of-control government provided for us by the framers of the Constitution, and which our ancestors managed to maintain in place for 150 years (with the predictable consequence being our becoming the most prosperous country in the history of the world), but which the ambitious, avaricious operators of the state managed to slip free of over the last 75 or so (with the predictable consequence being our becoming the most debt-ridden country in the history of the world).

It is also not possible for me to tell you when any given media voice is going to be ready to look and learn, and then deliver that coverage. This “readiness moment” changes every day, and neither you nor I will ever know in advance when your local paper, or your favorite blogger, or an Alex Jones or Lew Rockwell is going to be primed for exposure to this truth, whether because they're looking for an angle for a “TEA Party” story that day; have uncovered some other government corruption in another story already underway; or have just enjoyed the pleasures of a personal audit.

All I can tell you is that the errant federal government itself has written, and continues to write, the best, clearest and most unmistakable exposition of the accuracy of CtC with every week that goes by, and with every effort to suppress the liberating truth about the income tax uniquely revealed in that book. Your favorite media voice WILL take an interest at some point, and importantly break some ice, if the story is kept on his or her radar-screen.

So send out what follows early and widely, and don't stop. The adversary of the truth is counting on you guys giving up on vigorously and relentlessly spreading the truth before they are forced to give up their lies. Don't let them have the satisfaction of being right. You've got to view yourself as a one-man or one-woman PR department, and work like a successful PR department does, which is at least as persistently as the competition. They endlessly spread lies; we've got to endlessly spread the truth.

The Most Significant Whistleblower on Government Malfeasance in American History Languishes Unsung in a Federal Prison After a Corrupt Trial

In 2003, Peter Hendrickson published his first book, 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'. The book reveals how the federal and state governments have been systematically extracting trillions of dollars from hapless Americans for decades by exploiting a widespread, tax-agency-cultivated misunderstanding about the true nature of the income tax.

The fact is, while millions of Americans DO owe income taxes each year, because some or all of their earnings DO qualify as “income” within the statutory and Constitutional structure of the tax, many, many millions more do not, because THEIR earnings DO NOT qualify as “income”. Those who don’t understand the specialized meaning of this term in the tax law subject themselves to taxes that they don’t really owe, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, as well as those more generically labeled, and state and federal tax agencies are happy to take the money.

Hendrickson, who became the first American in history to recover Social Security, Medicare and all other federal income tax-related amounts withheld from him the same year ‘Cracking the Code’ was first published, has now written three books on the subject of federal taxing authority and other Constitutional issues. Tens of thousands of his readers have been getting all THEIR money back — week after week for more than seven years now — from federal and state governments that never really had legitimate claims to the taxes for which it was taken in the first place. The feds, especially, don't like this one bit.

During these seven years, the IRS and DoJ have tried repeatedly to suppress Hendrickson's books and readership. This began with a series of attempts to charge him with “promoting an abusive tax shelter” on the basis that what he reveals about the law is false. Four such assaults were defeated in federal courts in Michigan and California over the course of 2004 and 2005.

Unable to successfully attack the information, the agencies then began efforts to frighten readers away from the books. In 2006, four days before “tax day”, the IRS announced in a national press release that Hendrickson and his wife were being “sued” to recover complete refunds that the agency claimed were issued by “agency mistakes” (even while it continued to make tens of thousands of identical “mistakes” to ever-increasing numbers of Hendrickson's upstanding readers demanding the return of THEIR property).

After sitting for 9 1/2 months on the Hendricksons' immediate motions to dismiss the suit on various grounds, the judge in the case, Nancy Edmunds, simply “found” all allegations in the government’s complaint to be “facts”. She issued a “summary judgment” in the government’s favor — without a word of explanation, without ever holding so much as a hearing, and without the government ever producing any evidence attempting to support its “complaint”. It didn’t need to — the fix was in. A very readable legal brief detailing some of the key improprieties involved in this “judgment” can be found at http://losthorizons.com/PostCivilVacateAppealBrief.pdf. The Hendricksons appealed, but the circuit court, which as a matter of policy defers to a district court’s “finding of fact” on the presumption that they are made in good faith and are based on evidence, upheld the judgment (but only by way of an opinion it refused to publish even after being asked to do so by the DoJ…)

There has never been a single word of analysis or reasoning ventured to support the summary decree in this uncivil affair — indeed the “final judgment” was written in its entirety by the DoJ attorney who “argued” the case for the government. Nonetheless, the IRS announced nationwide that “Hendrickson has lost in court!” with as much fanfare as it could manage, and continues to do so to this day. What it DOESN’T mention in its press releases and on its official and private-label websites is that the government has never gotten a penny from the Hendricksons, and that its own Dept. of Treasury records actually show not only that the Hendricksons have never owed a tax for the years involved, but that the feds still owe them the return of more withheld money.

In fact, in a subtle but telling admission of the complete accuracy of what Hendrickson has revealed about the tax, the government, three years after the civil case summary judgment, has found itself having to ask the court to order the Hendricksons to create “amended” tax returns containing government-dictated numbers and other information, and to prohibit them from indicating that such instruments are coerced and not their own testimony. The idea, it admits, is that it can then pretend that the returns are voluntary admissions by the Hendricksons on the basis of which the government will further pretend that they do owe a tax for the years involved, and take money from them. This even though the whole pretext for the “lawsuit” in the first place was that such a tax debt had already long since been established…

Despite all the fanfare with which the government tried to make much of its “civil action” against Hendrickson, no dent was put in his readership, or its activism. Indeed, the bogus assault had the opposite effect. Anyone who actually read through the filings in the case quickly saw that the government “complaint” was a corrupt ploy, and therefore just another admission that it has no legitimate argument to make against Hendrickson.

Consequently, this backdoor admission of the accuracy of Hendrickson's revelations about the income tax simply joined the thousands of obvious and straightforward varieties represented by millions of dollars of complete refunds of withheld, paid in or seized property routinely and continuously being made to Hendrickson's readers by the federal and, so far, 33 state governments as well, sometimes even only after extended resistance by balky tax agencies trying to turn back the tide. Hundreds and hundreds of the checks, “closing notices” and lien and levy releases, along with the complete filings leading to all these results are posted on Hendrickson's website, losthorizons.com, which by the time of the “civil” government attack had grown to routinely logging 1.25 million hits every month from Americans stepping up to learn the liberating truth about the tax.

In addition to his transformational (and Big Brother-inhibiting) revelations about the income tax, Hendrickson is a prolific essayist on other areas of law and public policy– regularly publishing sharp criticisms of federal corruption and revealing well-concealed, but fully-functional legal limitations on government authority in a host of areas, from gun control to drug prohibition. In 2008, the feds escalated their efforts to silence him.

In November of that year, after failing in front of three grand juries, the feds finally figured out how to get one to indict Hendrickson. He was charged with ten counts of not believing what he has said in his books and the dozens of lectures on the tax he has made all over the country, and the hundreds of articles and legal papers he has written on the subject, and what the feds themselves have been admitting to be true for almost a decade, week in and week out.

Technically, the charges allege that when Hendrickson said on various tax forms that he had not received any of the statutorily-defined payments known as “wages” — which in tax law are NOT normal, undistinguished ‘payments for labor’ but are a special class of payments made to government workers, office-holders and appointees, and a number of other specialized recipients, and which are subject to the tax — this was untrue, and he believed it was untrue. But the government couldn't produce any evidence of his receipt of such “wages” in the trial that took place in Detroit during late October, 2009.

Indeed, not a single government witness testified about Hendrickson's receipt of anything at all, or that anything on his tax forms was false, incomplete, or wrong in any way. But the government was allowed by the presiding judge to present to the jury hundreds of pages of briefs filed by the DoJ in the “civil” case containing unsupported assertions and speculations by government attorneys and others that the Hendricksons had received “wages” and “self-employment income” during 2002 and 2003, while being excused from producing any of the authors, who should have been made to face Hendrickson and explain their words to the jury, and risk impeachment over these suggestive statements.

The jury, even after asking to see the actual words of the law relevant to the charges, and even despite Hendrickson's insistence that it be given this actual language of the law, was denied this request. Instead, it was given only prosecution-written “interpretations” of these statutes — per a ruling made by the judge AFTER the close of the defense presentation. Jurors were told they were obliged to render their decisions in the case based exclusively on those completely inaccurate, but prosecution-serving “interpretations”, which had been carefully designed to oblige the jury to convict.

Nonetheless, as it has for three years since the “civil lawsuit summary judgment”, the IRS touts the outcome in this kangaroo-court trial as a “loss in court” for Hendrickson and what he teaches about the law. It is, of course — in the same sense that Galileo “lost in court” over the question of whether Earth revolves around the Sun, since he, too was convicted for his heresy and ended up imprisoned…

Actually, Galileo’s story is not so apt an analogy, in one sense. While both his “trial” and Hendrickson’s really involved the mere exercise of power against inconvenient men, rather than an honest truth-finding process, at least in Galileo’s case the Church resorted to what it sincerely believed to be authority supporting its position. In the Hendrickson suppression, no one on the government side believes Hendrickson is wrong, and the prosecution and the trial judge did everything possible to avoid any resort to authority, knowing that all the authorities are against them. Indeed, the judge even went so far as to prohibit the defense from bringing in IRS experts to explain aspects of the tax to the jury.

Tellingly, despite this latest “loss in court” for Hendrickson and his revelations about the tax, his readers continue to get all their money back week in and week out, even as he sits behind federal razor-wire.

Details on the history of the government campaign to suppress Hendrickson's revelations, with documentation, can be found at http://losthorizons.com/ADocumentedCtCSuppressionHistory.pdf. A very layman-friendly legal brief laying out the corrupt practices in trial that resulted in Hendrickson's railroaded conviction can be found at http://losthorizons.com/PostCrimAppealBrief.pdf. For a quick introduction to the liberating truth about the income tax, see http://losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf.

Answers to a few typical questions from those newly introduced

to the truth about the “income tax

Q. Whatever Hendrickson revealed about the tax, won’t Congress just change the law if enough people keep learning it and acting on it?

A. The limited character of the tax is due to Constitutional constraints outside the control of Congress, not statutory design that Congress can change. That’s why Congress hasn’t “done anything” already, even after this information has been in print for seven years, and is being used for the benefit of more and more Americans every day.

Q. If everyone stopped paying the income tax, wouldn’t the government have to shut down? No more defense? No more roads?

A. First of all, “everyone” wouldn’t stop paying the income tax. Many Americans DO owe that tax every year. But the income tax is not about revenue — it’s about politics. The federal government has existing, legitimate mechanisms for raising every penny it raises now, without reliance on the income tax. These alternative mechanisms merely impose a much higher degree of political accountability on spending the peoples’ resources than does the misapplied and misunderstood income tax (and make it much more difficult for politicians to re-distribute wealth to favored beneficiaries). The framers of the Constitution set things up that way on purpose and for very good reasons.

Q. If it’s not about the money, why would the feds step outside the law to suppress this information?

A. It’s about power. As noted above, the misapplied income tax offers power without accountability. Plus, the misapplied income tax is used to manipulate Americans in many different ways in service to various private interests. But more than that, when you come to understand the truth about the income tax, you come to understand ALL the Constitutional limits to which the federal government is actually subject, as you never have before. The feds don’t want Americans to regain that understanding, and the power to rein in the government that it offers. It’s that simple.

November 29, 2010

losthorizons.com

For more information, contact phendrickson “at” losthorizons “dot” com

[fg_admin]

Airline incident Unreported – A MUST READ !!!!!! What would you do?

A MUST READ !!!!!! Our news media would not report this,,,,,,,why?

Sent to us by a reader.

_______________________________

I, Gene Hackemack, received this email from my good friend Tedd Petruna, a diver at the NBL facility [Neutral Buoyancy Lab], at NASA Houston, whom I used to work with. Tedd happened to be on this same Flt. 297, Atlanta to Houston.

In my opinion, the muslims are all getting very brave now..read Tedd's story below. Semper Fi

PS: Can you imagine, our own news media now are so politically correct that they are afraid to report that these were all muslims… unbelievable. Thank God for people like Tedd Petruna.

A. Gene Hackemack

979-251-2310 cell & homebuttonbox01@gmail.com

8725 Hwy 290 W

Brenham TX 77833

One week ago, I went to Ohio on business and to see my father.. On Tuesday, November the 17th, I returned home. If you read the papers the 18th you may have seen a blurb where a AirTran flight was cancelled from Atlanta to Houston due to a man who refused to get off of his cell phone before takeoff. It was on Fox.

This was NOT what happened.

I was in 1st class coming home. 11 Muslim men got on the plane in full attire. 2 sat in 1st class and the rest peppered themselves throughout the plane all the way to the back. As the plane taxied to the runway the stewardesses gave the safety spiel we are all so familiar with. At that time, one of the men got on his cell and called one of his companions in the back and proceeded to talk on the phone in Arabic very loudly and very aggressively. This took the 1st stewardess out of the picture for she repeatedly told the man that cell phones were not permitted at the time. He ignored her as if she was not there.

The 2nd man who answered the phone did the same and this took out the 2nd stewardess. In the back of the plane at this time, 2 younger Muslims, one in the back, isle, and one in front of him, window, began to show footage of a porno they had taped the night before, and were very loud about it. Now – they are only permitted to do this prior to Jihad. If a Muslim man goes into a strip club, he has to view the woman via mirror with his back to her.. (don't ask me..I don't make the rules, but I've studied) The 3rd stewardess informed them that they were not to have electronic devices on at this time. To which one of the men said “shut up infidel dog!” She went to take the camcorder and he began to scream in her face in Arabic. At that exact moment, all 11 of them got up and started to walk the cabin.

This is where I had had enough! I got up and started to the back where I heard a voice behind me from another Texan twice my size say “I got your back” I grabbed the man who had been on the phone by the arm and said “you WILL go sit down or you Will be thrown from this plane!” As I “led” him around me to take his seat, the fellow Texan grabbed him by the back of his neck and his waist and headed out with him. I then grabbed the 2nd man and said, “You WILL do the same!” He protested but adrenaline was flowing now and he was going to go..

As I escorted him forward the plane doors open and 3 TSA agents and 4 police officers entered. Me and my new Texan friend were told to cease and desist for they had this under control.. I was happy to oblige actually. There was some commotion in the back, but within moments, all 11 were escorted off the plane. They then unloaded their luggage.

We talked about the occurrence and were in disbelief that it had happen, when suddenly, the door open again and on walked all 11!! Stone faced, eyes front and robotic (the only way I can describe it). The stewardess from the back had been in tears and when she saw this, she was having NONE of it! Being that I was up front, I heard and saw the whole ordeal She told the TSA agent there was NO WAY she was staying on the plane with these men. The agent told her they had searched them and were going to go through their luggage with a fine tooth comb and that they were allowed to proceed

to Houston. The captain and co-captain came out and told the agent “we and our crew will not fly this plane!” After a word or two, the entire crew, luggage in tow, left the plane. 5 minutes later, the cabin door opened again and a whole new crew walked on.

Again…this is where I had had enough!!! I got up and asked “What the hell is going on!?!?” I was told to take my seat. They were sorry for the delay and I would be home shortly. I said “I'm getting off this plane”. The stewardess sternly told me that she could not allow me to get off. (now I'm mad!) I said “I am a grown man who bought this ticket, who's time is mine with a family at home and I am going through that door, or I'm going through that door with you under my arm!! But I am going through that door!!” And I heard a voice behind me say “so am I”. Then everyone behind us

started to get up and say the same.

Within 2 minutes, I was walking off that plane where I was met with more agents who asked me to write a statement. I had 5 hours to kill at this point so why the hell not. Due to the amount of people who got off that flight, it was cancelled. I was supposed to be in Houston at 6pm. I got here at 12:30am.

Look up the date. Flight 297 Atlanta to Houston.

If this wasn't a dry run, I don't know what one is. The terrorists wanted to see how TSA would handle it, how the crew would handle it, and how the passengers would handle it.

I'm telling this to you because I want you to know. The threat is real. I saw it with my own eyes. -Tedd Petruna

A. Gene Hackemack

979-251-2310 cell & home

buttonbox01@gmail.com

8725 Hwy 290 W

Brenham TX 77833

[fg_admin]

LOL if it weren't so painfully true. Hold on to your hat!

Let me get this straight . . . .

We're going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,

Which purportedly covers at least

ten million more people,

without adding a single new doctor,

but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,

written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it,

and signed by a President who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,

for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,

by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese ,

and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

'What the HELL could possibly go wrong?'

[fg_admin]

Let's keep the pressure on regarding the TSA cancer causing scanners and the legalized sexual assault by its employees.

Video: http://www.brasschec…m/page/985.html

Recently, an attractive 17 year old girl was singled out of line at Oakland Airport to be molested by TSA agents.

Homeland Security is NOT backing off and anyone celebrating the “success” of protests is delusional.

The TSA scanners and gropings are not about security at all, but about mass training of people in compliance and herding.

Facts:

* The FBI does not use scanners to protect its headquarters in Washington DC – it uses bomb sniffing dogs which are not only cheaper, they are infinitely more reliable.

* In Iraq and Afghanistan where suicide bombers are a real problem, the US military does not use electronics to detect them, they use bomb-sniffing dogs.

* In Russia, the site of the supposed “bra bomber,” the response has been to bring in bomb-sniffing dogs NOT to molest random women travelers.

How could is possibly be more clear?

The scanners and gropings are NOT proper security measures – the FBI knows it, the US military knows it, and the military air security in Russia knows it.

Yet, Americans are not getting these facts.

We all need to do our part in keeping the pressure on the news media – alternative and mainstream – to cover this, otherwise get used to having wives, sisters, friends and children molested by any TSA agent and it won't just be limited to airports.

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Larry responds.

____________

I agree: Statutory “citizens of the United States” in 8 USC 1401 are NOT the same as Constitutional citizens. But your phrase, “non-citizen national of the United States”, is identical to a citizen from the possessions, but not otherwise a US citizen. That is a very bad phrase.

_________________

Our member responds back as follows:

______

Larry,

No argument there either. You simply overlooked the context and the symbology I used and engaged in injurious presumption. Notice we used three stars after “United States***”, and in all our documents we identify what those stars mean to prevent confusion with the statutory “United States**”. We also added “of America” as an additional protection.

But of course you overlook all that and don’t look at the “Why You Are a National” document so you can continue advancing presumptions about the meaning of words that injure people. This tendency of abusing words of art and presumption, in fact, is the main weapon a corrupted judiciary uses to enslave and injure the people. Corrupt communist judges just love “useful idiots” who play their little deceit and presumption game in this fashion. I would at least hope that if you really do claim to be a freedom advocate, you should at least recognize the corruption and avoid it by understanding and adopting the symbology we use to avoid it.

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Larry Becraft’s response to the previous post. Sent to us by one of our readers. More hogwash and presumptions. By failing to rebut the previous information, he indirectly is admitting it. Hence, he agrees with us, and is knowingly spreading DISinformation to confuse people and thereby perpetuate and expand the value and importance of his profession.

_____________

I think you really need to study “national,” which inherently is a citizen of one of the possessions.

Larry

___________________

Here was the response to his response above:

__________________

Larry,

We agree with you that a “national of the United States” as described in 8 USC 1408 is a citizen of the possessions born in American Samoa or Swain’s Islands. Always have. We don’t claim to be THAT “national of the United States**”, but rather a non-citizen national of the United States*** OF AMERICA, which is nowhere used in title 8 and therefore not subject to federal civil law because not domiciled on federal territory within the statutory but not constitutional “United States**”.

Statutory “citizens of the United States” in 8 USC 1401 are NOT the same as Constitutional citizens. You are confusing the two contexts and PRESUMING they are equal, and there is NO foundation to do so. This is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine and results in a destruction of the separation between the federal zone and states of the Union, which are STATUTORILY but not CONSTITUTIONALLY foreign in relation to each under under Title 26.

See:

Why you are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory National

http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf

We’re still waiting for a rebuttal to that document. Not even the Ninth Circuit would argue against it. Even the Dept of State issues non-citizen national passports. Our members spent two hours on the phone with their legal counsel and she could not rebut anything so she agrees also. That was Sharon Palmer-Royston of the Legal Affairs office of the DOS.

Until you can prove the above is wrong, it remains correct and admitted per F.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(6).

[fg_admin]

Based on the previous post, Larry is confusing:

1. POLITICAL jurisdiction with LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction.

2. The three definitions of “United States”.

3. Whether the STATUTORY or the CONSTITUTIONAL context is implied.

In fact:

1. None of the cases he cites distinguish WHICH of the three “United States” identified in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt they are referring to. This omission is deliberate so they can create the appearance of jurisdiction where none exists. If they were more specific, most of the scams with jurisdiction we see today would be impossible.

2. POLITICAL jurisdiction and LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction are NOT equivalent. The Constitution is a political document that confers POLITICAL jurisdiction.

3. We agree that the United States* is not POLITICALLY foreign in respect to the Constituional states. By this we mean that the states and the federal government are not CONSTITUTIONALLY “foreign”. This does NOT mean that they cannot be STATUTORILY foreign. For nearly all subject matters the states are, in fact, STATUTORILY but not CONSTITUTIONALLY foreign.

4. The United States** is LEGISLATIVELY and STATUTORILY foreign in respect to states of the Union for all subject matters EXCEPT the following:

4.1 Excise taxes upon imports from foreign countries. See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress may NOT, however, tax any article exported from a state pursuant to Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Other than these subject matters, NO national taxes are authorized:

4.2 Postal fraud. See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution..

4.3 Counterfeiting under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution.

4.4 Treason under Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

4.5 Interstate commercial crimes under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

4.6 Jurisdiction over naturalization and exportation of Constitutional aliens.

4.7 Slavery, involuntary servitude, or peonage under the Thirteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §1994, 18 U.S.C. §1581. and 18 U.S.C. §1589(3).

If this were not true, then:

a. Why are all “individuals” aliens under the I.R.C.? See 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3).

b. Why does everyone file a resident alien tax return? The 1040 form is for “U.S. individuals”

c. Why are citizens of Puerto Rico and Guam listed in IRS Pub 519 as “nonresident aliens”? See:

Nonresident alien position, Form #05.020, Section 7.3

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

d. Why are “States” defined in 4 U.S.C. 110(d) to EXCLUDE states of the Union. Wouldn’t “States” that are NOT included be legislatively “foreign” for the purposes of that subject matter? “Foreign”, after all, means “sovereign” because not subject or “included” in the definition.

5. The main method by which a LEGISLATIVELY foreign state citizen becomes LEGISLATIVELY domestic is through the abuse and illegal implementation of federal franchises within constitutional states of the Union. The Supreme Court held in the License Tax Cases that Congress could not license a trade or business in a state in order to tax it. This case has never been over-ruled. Hence, they cannot establish a franchise or privilege in a legislatively foreign state. Even to this day, the definitions in the I.R.C. are completely consistent with this fact. The way they are getting around this is using silence and omission, the opportunity for which was created by Taft in the Certiorari Act of 1925. This is discussed in:

Great IRS Hoax, Section 6.4.1

http://famguardian.o…reatIRSHoax.htm

6. The Claflin case he cites is rebutted in:

Great IRS Hoax, Section 5.2.3

http://famguardian.o…reatIRSHoax.htm

7. Confusing the POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL context with the LEGISLATIVE/STATUTORY context is the same bullshit word of art game they are using to make everyone believe they are statutory “U.S. citizens”, as described in:

Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Section 3

http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf

Confucious was right:

Quote:

“When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty.”

8. Below is an example of where states of the Union are described as legislatively foreign in relation to federal territory. This is an unavoidable consequence of the separation of powers doctrine. This is why all “individuals” in the I.R.C. are aliens: Because the people they are trying to reach are either abroad or in a CONSTITUTIONAL but not STATUTORY state of the Union. Hence, they are LEGISLATIVELY FOREIGN but not POLITICALLY FOREIGN.

Quote:

Ҥ1. Definitions, Nature, and Distinctions

“The word ‘territory,’ when used to designate a political organization has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and does not necessarily include all the territorial possessions of the United States, but may include only the portions thereof which are organized and exercise governmental functions under act of congress.”

“While the term ‘territory’ is often loosely used, and has even been construed to include municipal subdivisions of a territory, and ‘territories of the’ United States is sometimes used to refer to the entire domain over which the United States exercises dominion, the word ‘territory,’ when used to designate a political organization, has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and the term ‘territory’ or ‘territories’ does not necessarily include only a portion or the portions thereof which are organized and exercise government functions under acts of congress. The term ‘territories’ has been defined to be political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States, and in this sense the term ‘territory’ is not a description of a definite area of land but of a political unit governing and being governed as such. The question whether a particular subdivision or entity is a territory is not determined by the particular form of government with which it is, more or less temporarily, invested.

“Territories’ or ‘territory’ as including ‘state’ or ‘states.” While the term ‘territories of the’ United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress “territory” does not include a foreign state.

“As used in this title, the term ‘territories’ generally refers to the political subdivisions created by congress, and not within the boundaries of any of the several states.”

[86 C.J.S. [Corpus, Juris, Secundum, Legal Encyclopedia], Territories]

9. The deliberate confusion Becraft creates by refusing to identify which of the two contexts, POLITICAL or LEGISLATIVE, he is referring to was predicted and rebutted in:

9.1 Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Section 17

http://famguardian.o…teWHOptions.pdf

9.2 Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 8

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Another response by Larry Becraft. We didn't write this.

___________

Doug,

Right before the Iron Bowl today, you sent me a note asking about that popular, but meritless, argument that the United States is foreign in some respect as to the States. I attach hereto two documents. One is simply a PDF file I just created containing the cases that are alleged to support this proposition. Both of those cases DO NOT support the argument. Also included in this file is a Supreme Court case, Claflin, which has not been reversed, that holds otherwise that the US is not foreign to us.

I also attach another document that has 2 pages from a law encyclopedia, CJS, that addresses this matter and also states that Uncle Sam is not foreign.

Uncle Sam is our domestic, international power, federal in structure.

Federal govts have a primary jurisdiction that is international. Why would anybody want to be within the scope of a federal power by claiming to be foreign to it?

Feel free to send these documents to anybody that needs to be so educated.

Larry

[fg_admin]

TSA Grope a Dope Program

The administration's TSA program, grope a dope, was executed on thousands of Americans over the last four days and went off without a major glitches. The new policy to unzip you fly before you fly is here to stay. It is even worse than this. Some lonely women actually enjoyed the pat down feeling secure and more loved by the airlines. The blonde bombs on Fox News said they felt safer and “have nothing to hide.” Our government's indoctrination of Americans is complete. Washington D.C. has proved there is nothing the government can do that is so invasive and intrusive to which Americans will object. Nothing! With such passivity, is there any hope that America can overcome the complete takeover of this country by the socialists who want to control everything?

New Slogans for the Airlines

Southwest: THE Low Feeling Airline.

United Airlines: Fly the friendly sky after we unzip your fly.

Aerflot: Sincerely in yours, Aeroflot (From Russia with Love).

American Airlines: Doing what we do best, grope your breast.

Air France: Fly to France after we see your underpants.

Eastern Airlines: We have to earn our wings every day with our interplay.

Austrian Airlines: After we touch your thigh, you'll smile in the sky.

British Airways: We'll take more care of all of you after a little peek-a-boo.

Delta: Delta is ready when you are, bend over.

Hawaiian Airlines: Hawaii Starts Here—in your boobs.

Frontier: A whole different animal [philomammalian].

PanAm. Dying to see you.

Lufthansa. There's a better way to fly after we clarify what's under your fly.

[fg_admin]

In fact, the CJS DOES say the United States is a foreign corporation. The correct cite is:

19 C.J.S., “Corporations”, Section 883-884

SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…CJS883to884.pdf

For further details, see:

http://famguardian.o…nitedStates.htm

The exact language is:

Quote:

“The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” [N.Y. v. re Merriam 36 N.E. 505; 141 N.Y. 479; affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073; 41 L. Ed. 287]

u][url url=”http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Evidence/Jurisdiction/19CJS883.jpg”][color color=”#0000ff”]19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) legal encyclopedia, Corporations, §884[/color][/url

[/u]

Anyone wishing to study this subject further is encouraged to read:

Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…aw/CorpGovt.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Section 2 of the above document compares a pure corporation with a government.

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Another response on this issue from Becraft.

__________________________

Merle,

Like AmJur and AmJur2d, CJS (“Corpus Juris Secundum”) is a legal encyclopedia. It is sub-divided like many encyclopedias into manyspecific legal topics and contains about 100+ volumes. Any given legal topic is divided into sections, and the correct manner to cite something from CJS is something like this: “CJS, Vol.81A, 'States,' §20 (2010).”

You have relied for your position regarding the “foreign”nature of the United States on something allegedly published in CJS. Apparently, you think that “Volume 20” of CJS has some “Section 1785 “that states: “The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state”. I reach this conclusion from the question you asked me:

1) Yes or No, Do you admit that: Volume 20: Corpus Juris Secundum, Section 1785 specifically declares,

“The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state”?

Yes No

My answer to your question is NO. To answer your question, I just ran up to the Madison County, Alabama, law library across the street from our county courthouse to look thru CJS. Vol. 20 has several legal topics in it and thus nobody could find the “Section 1785” to which you refer because it is impossible to know what is the particular subject. I then specifically looked under the topics of “States” and “United States”, which are in Vols. 81A and 91. I then read the sections of these volumes of CJS to determine what this private law publisher prints about the issue of the nature of the United States. In both the topics of “States” and “United States”, I find that CJS plainly states that the United States is NOT foreign to the States as I have asserted to you. I attach hereto PDF scans of these pages I just copied.

I suggest you print out these pages and read them.

Larry

[fg_admin]

Becraft clearly doesn't understand what is going on:

1. Corporations can be created without stock by issuing bonds only.

2. Current U.S. currency is identified by the U.S. Supreme Court as a “promissory note” in the Legal Tender Cases. These notes even identify themselves as “notes” by saying “Federal Reserve Note” at the top. See:

Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)

4. Black's Law Dictionary defines “money” as EXCLUDING notes, including Federal Reserve Notes.

5. Corporations can have bondholders without having stockholders.

6. The Federal Reserve, which is a private for profit association of banks, is the chief bondholder of U.S. Inc bonds. They are the only ones who can even CREATE these bonds to begin with under the Federal Reserve Act.

7. There is no practical difference between being a stockholder and being a bondholder. Interest on bonds is the logical equivalent of dividends on stocks. Stocks can go up in value but FRNs almost never go up or have a stock split. In practice, FRNs as bonds are MUCH more profitable than stocks because they are manufactured for 3 cents on the dollar but sold to the de facto PRIVATE corporation for their full face value.

If you want further information about the above, read:

The Money Scam, Form #05.041

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…w/MoneyScam.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Becraft also doesn't understand what we mean when we say that the U.S. government is a PRIVATE, for profit, corporation. This is what we mean:

1. Governments are created to protect PRIVATE rights by keeping them PRIVATE and not allowing them to be converted to PUBLIC, even with the consent of the owner. That is what an “unalienable right” identified in the Declaration of Independence means, in fact: One that cannot be sold, bargained away, or transferred by any commercial process, INCLUDING a franchise.

2. A government that does any of the following is, in fact, a PRIVATE, non-governmental corporation:

2.1 Refuses to recognize private rights.

2.2 Refuses to provide forms in every franchise that recognize non-participants. For instance, IRS refuses to make NONTAXPAYER forms available or to provide options under block 3 of the W-8BEN form for “nontaxpayer” or “private transient foreigner human being”. The only option they have is “individual” for human beings.

2.3 Refuses to PROTECT private rights.

2.4 Makes a business out of alienating PRIVATE rights and turning them into public rights, such as franchise.

2.5 Refuses to protect people from compelled participation in franchises, all of which involve an alienation of unalienable rights.

2.6 Refuses to indicate in the codes they enact that they are private law that only applies to those who consent, and the specific subset of people who can lawfully consent.

3. De facto governments are abusing their right to contract and the private law that implements the contract to:

3.1 Operate in a PRIVATE capacity, while refusing to identify it in litigation as PRIVATE business activity that cannot be protected with sovereign immunity. This gives the government an unfair and unequal advantage in the private marketplace that virtually ensures that it will always end up with a monopoly. An example of this is Social Security. Private companies ought to be able to offer similar insurance, and the government should protect their right to compete. Ditto with the Postal Service, and every other federal agency.

3.2 Not giving “reasonable notice” that it requires consent and cannot be compelled within the franchise itself. Instead, they call it a “code” and let YOU determine without notice whether it is also law FOR YOU.

3.3 Operating the contract outside their territory unlawfully.

An example of the above phenomenon of FORCING people to donate their PRIVATE property to a public office and a public use is how Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise participants offer bank accounts. No bank we have found will open a business bank account for an artificial entity WITHOUT requiring an EIN. If that entity is a nonresident alien entity, 26 CFR 301.6109-1(b) says that the number is only required in the course of a “trade or business”. A “trade or business” is defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”, which is an excise taxable activity. Hence, what banks are requiring these otherwise PRIVATE entities to do is become public offices in the government for the “privilege” of even existing commercially. This is an unlawful conversion of private property to a public use in a violation of the rights of the owners that is the heart of why we have a DE FACTO corporate government rather than a DE JURE government: Because the IRS and the DOJ:

1. Refuse to prosecute the source of such compulsion. This type of deliberate, WILLFUL, and CRIMINAL omission is what we call “selective enforcement”.

2. Are allowing public property, which is the number, to be abused to exercise eminent domain in foreign jurisdictions in violation of both the Fifth Amendment and every state constitution out there.

SCUM BAGS.

We don't agree that the only sense in which governments act as corporation is limited liability. In fact, the early Supreme Court held that insulating government officers from liability for their actions is against the Constitution and un American:

Quote:

“… the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place in our system of government; yet it is also true, in respect to the State itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government and not to the State, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which therefore is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the State, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely spread and act in its name.“

“This distinction is essential to the idea of constitutional government. To deny it or blot it out obliterates the line of demarcation that separates constitutional government from absolutism, free self- government based on the sovereignty of the people from that despotism, whether of the one or the many, which enables the agent of the state to declare and decree that he is the state; to say 'L'Etat, c'est moi.' Of what avail are written constitutions, whose bills of right, for the security of individual liberty, have been written too often with the blood of martyrs shed upon the battle-field and the scaffold, if their limitations and restraints upon power may be overpassed with impunity by the very agencies created and appointed to guard, defend, and enforce them; and that, too, with the sacred authority of law, not only compelling obedience, but entitled to respect? And how else can these principles of individual liberty and right be maintained, if, when violated, the judicial tribunals are forbidden to visit penalties upon individual offenders, who are the instruments of wrong, whenever they interpose the shield of the state? The doctrine is not to be tolerated. The whole frame and scheme of the political institutions of this country, state and federal, protest against it. Their continued existence is not compatible with it. It is the doctrine of absolutism, pure, simple, and naked, and of communism which is its twin, the double progeny of the same evil birth.”

b][u][url url=”http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=114&page=270″]Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270; 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885)[/url[/u][/b]

We also think that the federal courts are abusing sovereign immunity and official immunity to protect CRIMINAL wrongdoing by government officers. In that sense, the District of Columbia has become a haven for financial terrorists that wants to consolidate and centralize all power in the District of Criminals, as Mark Twain called it, and as Thomas Jefferson predicted they would do.

[fg_admin]

New TSA (Transportation Safety Administration) Slogans

Ø Can't see London, can't see France, unless we see your underpants.

Ø Grope discounts available.

Ø If we did our job any better, we'd have to buy you dinner first.

Ø Only we know if Lady Gaga is really a lady.

Ø Don't worry, my hands are still warm from the last guy.

Ø Throw a few back at the airport Chili's and you won't even notice.

Ø Wanna fly? Drop your fly.

Ø We've handled more balls than Barney Frank

Ø We are now free to move about your pants

Ø We rub you the wrong way, so you can be on your way.

Ø It's not a grope. It's a freedom pat.

Ø When in doubt, we make you whip it out.

Ø TSA: Touchin', Squeezin', Arrestin'

Ø You were a virgin.

Ø We handle more packages than the USPS

Ø The TSA isn't silly, they just want to inspect your willy

Ø Stroke of the hand, law of the land

Ø No Shirt, No Shoes, No Problem

Ø Let your fingers do the Walking

Ø Cough

Ø Reach out and touch someone

Ø Can you feel me now?

Ø When we're done with you, you'll need a cigarette.

Ø Is that thing for real or is it Viagra?

Ø Step into the x-rated machine

Ø Female TSA Theme song by Lionel Richie: Yes we felt…”…You’re once….twice….three times a lady….”

Ø Generic TSA Theme Song by Kenny Rogers: “I was looking for love in all the wrong places…”

Ø New TSA Jingle in cooperation w/ Haine’s Underwear: “Wait till we get our chains on you….”

Ø TSA: “Thousand’s Standing Around”

Ø We’ve seen more crack than the DEA.

Ø Why only preserve wetlands….we make them by hand.

Ø One ball better hang low, otherwise you don’t get to go.

Ø New TSA Sign: We’re the cancer that gives you a breast exam.

[fg_admin]

SNL Presidential Mockery: Hu Jintao Asks Obama “Why You Not Kiss Me Before You Do Sex To Me” (MUST SEE)

http://dailybail.com…you-not-ki.html