fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Mysterious Deaths of 911 witnesses
-
mstark,
Thank you for your interest in this ministry and the truth. We didn’t write the document to which you refer so we are not responsibile for it. However, we wanted to point out a few things.
1. If you want to read answers to the many variations of the questions you just asked, visit the following. It’s pointless to answer the same questions yet again, and the least you could do is start off your post with an explanation why these answers are insufficient:
Section 0: http://sedm.org/FAQs/FAQs.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
Section 1: http://famguardian.org/FAQ/FAQ.htm2. You aren’t reading our materials or those of our sister site if you think that the goal of this site is to be a “sovereign citizen”. That phrase, in fact, is an “oxymoron” used mainly by morons. See:
Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments Against This Website, Form #08.011, Section 5.1
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…rgAgWebsite.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm3. You did not follow the format for asking questions. Your question is framed as a request for legal advice and our About Us page, Section 12, item 4, forbids the giving of legal advice. See:
ABOUT US PAGE: http://famguardian.o…try/aboutus.htm
GUIDE TO ASKING QUESTIONS: http://sedm.org/Memb…ngQuestions.htm (offsite link)
PATH TO FREEDOM, SECTION 14.4: http://sedm.org/Form…thToFreedom.pdf4. If you want guarantees, you are on the wrong website and following the wrong God. Sovereigns make all their decisions based on what the law and legally admissible evidence actually says that they have read themselves. They don’t rely on the opinions of others and opinions is what you just asked for. Therefore, you must not want to be sovereign. All rights come from responsibilities to a higher power, and that higher power is God and His laws. For the reasons, please read the following:
http://famguardian.o…ityUniverse.htm5. You didn’t define “work”, and you can’t use a commercial criteria for the definition, because this website has no commercial purpose, but only law enforcement purpose. Our criteria for that phrase is:
5.1 Is it consistent with what man’s law says and permits in its entirety?
5.2 Is it consistent with what God’s law says and permits in its entirety?Any other definition leads to the giving of legal advice or making promises or guarantees that our Prohibited Activities (About Us page, section 12. http://famguardian.o…try/aboutus.htm) forbids us to provide. No member of this ministry is authorized to give advice and if they do, you should not rely on it. In fact, the ONLY thing you can rely on, according to the courts is the following:
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…nableBelief.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htmOver ten years of legal research have been devoted to ensuring that the materials on this site and our sister site are entirely consistent with the law. That should save you a lot of time discovering the truth for yourself. This website is:
1. For truth seekers and serious students of the law
2. Not for “success” or “prosperity” seekers.
3. Not for those who are too lazy to do their own homework or earn their sovereignty.
4. Not for those who prefer to make decisions based on opinions rather than FACTS and evidence.These forums are provided in order to improve the accuracy of all the materials pointed to or posted on this website. If you want to know what people think of our materials, read these forums. We don’t censor them. No one that we are aware of has ever found any flaws in what is currently posted, even though this site is used and reviewed by over 60,000 people per month and has been in existence for ten years.
Ultimately, however, you will need to take complete and exclusive responsibility for yourself and all your own actions and choices and proceed ONLY upon reasonable belief and evidence. The purpose of this site is to provide the legal evidence upon which to make informed decisions, not to make those decisions for you or run a life that you should be running yourself.
“One who turns his ear from hearing the law [God’s law or man’s law], even his prayer is an abomination.”
[Prov. 28:9, Bible, NKJV]”This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. Have I not commanded you? Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”
[Joshua 1:8-9, Bible, NKJV,
IMPLICATION: If you aren’t reading and trying to obey God’s law daily, then you’re not doing God’s will and you will not prosper]“But this crowd that does not know [and quote and follow and use] the law is accursed.”
[John 7:49, Bible, NKJV]Welcome to our fellowship and to what should be the start of a life learning all the things the government ensures that you never learn in the Idiot Factory called public school.
-
When he produces legal evidence proving he is real, he will be worthy of trust. Until then, he's just another charlatan like so many before him. The burden of proof is on him, and upon you if you are promoting him. All the videos and all the political speech in the world don't satisfy the requirement for legally admissible evidence. We are not aware of any reason to trust or believe anything he says or any of the sensational emails he sends out, and his word is insufficient. Caveat emptor. If he had proof, he would post it on his website. Because he hasn't, we think he is a government mole trying to gather information about dissidents.
He is also a redemption advocate, and we strongly disagree with redemption, for the reasons indicated in the following document:
Policy Document: UCC Redemption, Form #08.002
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/PolicyDocs/UCC.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
These forums are a mock court, not a political platform. Show me the beef. NO PRESUMPTIONS PLEASE!
-
Here is the latest (about a week and a half ago) about “pirates”
In Demos v. United States 10-cv-00583 (Dist.Ct.,N.Nevada)(2010) here is what the Plaintiff claimed:
Plaintiff [a prisoner in custody] brings this action against the United States, the State of Washington, the District of Columbia, and additionally names the United States of America and Washington, D.C. Plaintiff alleges that he “was made the booty, and the prize, by “pirates” disguised as Washington state law enforcement officers,” and also claims violations of several rights including to a speedy trial, to confront his accusers, and to be free from double jeopardy. He further claims he received inadequate medical treatment while in the custody of pirates.
Very cute.
-
Saladino Sentenced.
SOURCE: http://www.oregonliv…ino_and_as.html
________________
Joseph Saladino and associates sentenced in $9.5 million IRS fraud case
Published: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 6:36 PM Updated: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 7:00 PM
Jeff Manning, The Oregonian
The promoter of a bogus tax dodge who insisted that personal income in the U.S. is not taxable was sentenced Wednesday to the statutory maximum of 60 months in federal prison.
Joseph Oquendo Saladino of Boise and three associates were found guilty last November of conspiring to defraud the IRS. They filed approximately 1,800 returns on behalf of clients who claimed to owe no income tax. The loss to the U.S. Treasury, if the IRS hadn't eventually rejected the returns, would have topped $9.5 million.
Saladino associates Michael Mungovan of Marion, Ind., and Richard Fuselier of Lafayette, La., were sentenced Wednesday to 48 months and 21 months in prison, respectively.
Fusilier received a more lenient sentence after pleading guilty last September and cooperating with prosecutors.
A fourth defendant, Marcel Bendshadler of Portland, is scheduled to be sentenced Aug. 27.
Saladino had no legal, accounting or tax training. But he and Fuselier developed their “Claim of Right” theory, based on the premise that wages and income from self-employment is not taxable. Along with Mungovan and the colorful Bendshadler, who wore a kilt to the courtroom for the duration of his trial, Saladino and Fusilier promoted the Claim of Right theory nationwide via the U.S. mail, the Internet and live seminars.
“This was a very comprehensive, sophisticated marketing campaign,” Kerin said. “People believed him. And because of that, they believed his tax theories.”
Saladino's clients would claim a deduction on their tax returns equal to their total annual wages or self-employment income. That usually resulted in no taxes being owed and claims for a refund.
The IRS approved several of the Claim of Right returns before determining that theory was bogus, said Michelle Kerin, an assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case.
The trial lasted more than two weeks. The sentencing was delayed until now in part because of the still-unsolved murder of Nancy Bergeson, the public defender who represented Bendshadler. Bergeson was found dead in the dining room of her Portland home Nov. 24, the day after the jury ruled in the Saladino case.
“Tax protesters who participated in and purchased these programs from the defendants demonstrably claim to irrational beliefs regarding the tax system and the role of the IRS,” said Allan Garten, who prosecuted the case along with Kerin. “It is our hope that the sentences here will send a strong signal that the U.S. attorneys' office and the IRS will not tolerate that kind of conduct, particularly in light of our serious national debt problem.”
–Jeff Manning
-
1. You cited the phrase “several States” from the Social Security Act, as if to create at least the appearance that said act allows for the participation of constitutional states of the Union. However, the act itself, even to this day, NEVER defines the term “State” or “States” to expressly include constitutional states of the Union. In fact, it CANNOT without violating the separation of powers doctrine. Consequently, this is nothing but an obvious RUSE by socialists and government idolators to deceive. FDR, who wrote the bill, was undoubtedly a deceiver. I don't care about the phrase “several States” as much as I care about seeing a definition in any franchise that expressly includes constitutional states of the Union. Show me the “beef” dude. Until such time as you do, under the rules of statutory construction and interpretation, I am entitled to the benefit of the presumption that what is not expressly INCLUDED is purposefully excluded. Any attempt to add anything to a definition that does not expressly appear is a violation of due process of law, a tort, and will result in the creation of a state sponsored religion that makes government into a pagan god and me into an idolator.
Quote:'It is apparent,' this court said in the Bailey Case ( 219 U.S. 239 , 31 S. Ct. 145, 151) 'that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.'2. You stated that participation in the SS program is voluntary. You also forgot to mention that SSA has also admitted that using an SSN is also equally as voluntary. Hence, there is no mandate to participate in the tax or ss systems at all. However, de facto practice within financial institutions and government dictate otherwise, even though in violation of law at 42 USC 408(a)(8). See:
SEDM Exhibit 07.004 (OFFSITE LINKS)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX07.004.pdf
EXHIBITS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Exhi…xhibitIndex.htm
3. Another important step beyond simply getting people to recognize their status as NRAs is to realize that those paying money as private businesses are not “U.S. sources”, and hence, cannot and need not withhold the 30% mandated against NRAs in 26 USC 3406. Withholding can only be effected for “U.S. sourced” payments, meaning payments FROM the government. The subject of WHICH “United States” is meant in the I.R.C. is covered in:
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 7
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
-
1. You state:
” Likewise, when a person avails themselves to the SS franchise, they MUST become “taxpayers” . . . PERIOD! When you say that the “government may not make a business out of destroying, taxing, and regulating rights that it was established ONLY to protect and LEAVE ALONE” — I submit to you they in fact have. So we can wish all we want, but we have to deal in reality.”
I don't agree with this. The SS act itself is not positive law and therefore only acquires the force of law by the CONTINUING consent of the parties.
1.1. It never says that those who participate MUST use the number.
1.2. It never says that those who sign up MUST donate ALL their formerly private earnings and PRIVATE property to a public use, public purpose, and public office.
1.3. It never entirely outlaws, and CANNOT outlaw private property.
1.4. It doesn't require you to work for them 24 hours a day.
Rather, the use of the number is voluntary and when private property is connected VOLUNTARILY to the number, then the property changes character to public property. When any of the following occurs, it changes from a voluntary conversion to nothing short of theft:
a. At the point the transaction is not fully informed.
b. When use of the number is compelled.
c. When they won't admit the nature of the transaction.
d. When they won't protect your right NOT to participate or to quit in court.
e. When they hide the forms to quit or won't allow you to quit.
f. When they tell you that you don't have a choice WHEN the number is used. That is equivalent of telling you that you have no private property and work for them 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
You didn't read the Resignation of SS Trustee document carefully enough based on your flawed conclusion on this subject. Every REAL job or office has specified working hours. If there are no criteria for deciding when you are on duty and when you are off, its no longer a job, but SLAVERY, 24 hours a day , 7 days a week. To preserve any semblance of freedom, they must preserve and protect your right to decide HOW MUCH of your private property you want to donate to the public office and franchise. If you can't decide or if someone else decides, you cease to be free because you no longer control the property.
The same arguments apply to the compelled submission of the W-4, the compelled use of numbers to open bank accounts, and the omission in prosecuting those who impose the compulsion. All such activites render the system de facto and criminal, rather than de jure or lawful.
2. You say:
“So where is anything they do outside of the Constitution and the laws of the United States? I can't find it! The United States Government can contract and can place mandates as a result of that contract — and that includes legitimate public offices.”
It is unlawful because of the long list of criminal activities and separation of powers issuses at the end of my last post the result from implementing the franchise outside of federal territory. Didn't you pay attention?
3. As far as controversy over “the States”, the following simple rule of statutory construction forbids adding any thing or class of things not expressly specified. Hence, states of the Union are not within the meaning of “the States”. PERIOD. The government as moving party asserting a liability has the burden of proving that states of the Union ARE EXPRESSLY within the meaning of the definition. I don't have the burden of proving that the AREN'T. You can't prove a negative anyway:
Quote:“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.” [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 581]4. The whole thing is based on fraud because of the way it is administered:
4.1 They won't impute the same rights to ensnare them as they use against you.
4.2 What they are doing is private business activitity and they can't protect it with sovereign immunity to make themselves superior. After all, when they contract with private individuals, they must do so in equity.
4.3 They won't enforce your equal right to contract with them using an anti-franchise franchise using the same mechanisms they use against you.
4.4 They won't allow you to elect them into an office without their consent and within YOUR OWN private corporation or trust using similarly bogus information returns.
4.5 They refuse to tell you the truth about how their system operates, and thus are engaging in constructive fraud.
4.6 The result of all the machinations is that people end up unequal and inferior in relation to them, which is the opposite purpose of the constitution, which is that all men are equal.
5. When they contract, they aren't doing so as a government. That is why the IRS is not part of the government: Because its the only way they can lawfully make a business out of accomplishing goals OPPOSITE the purpose of their creation.
Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…OrigAuthIRS.pdf
Nowhere in the law is the IRS listed as being part of the U.S. government and it has no legislative authority to even exist. Even the code that is alleged to have created it is merely one big statutory presumption, and therefore a civil religion aimed at collecting tithes to a state sponsored church in violation of the First Amendment. 1 USC 204 says the entire IRC is “prima facie”, which means the entire title is a statutory presumption. It is unconstitutional and a violation of due process of law to injure rights protected by the Constitution using a presumption. The only way such enforcement can ever be lawful is if the target consents. And they REFUSE their constitutional duty to protect people who don't consent. Hence, its fraud, trickery, and theft through omission and obfuscation.
_______________
IN CONCLUSION:
Real governments are created to protect PRIVATE rights. The first step in protecting such rights is NEVER to convert them to public rights, even with the consent of the owner of the rights or property. They have setup a system that converts rights through fraud, omission, deceit, and false presumption. That sounds like a religion and its all trickery. They are simply following the father of lies, which is Satan himself. The fraud lies not in the law, but in how it is misrepresented, enforced, and portrayed as positive law when it is really private law.
If they told the truth on their forms and both recognized AND protected your right to not participate, I wouldn't have any complaints about it at all. If they added a “nontaxpayer” box to their forms, and allowed NONtaxpayers to petition tax court without jeopardizing their status, then I wouldn't complain, for instance. Because they won't, there will be no end of complaining from me about it. All public officers have a fiduciary duty to the public. That fiduciary duty requires FULL DISCLOSURE, honest dealings, and a complete and total commitment towards doing what is in the best interest of the party who is the object of the fiducuiary duty, which is you and I as PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL human beings. They:
a. Aren't living up to that standard.
b. Only enforce that standard when it is convenient for them, such as when prosecuting people for failure to file.
c. Interfere with people quitting the franchise.
d. Hide the forms to quit.
e. Add things to the definitions of words that aren't there to advantage themselves personally and financially.
f. Unlawfully allow OTHER people to consent on your behalf to the franchise, but won't let YOU sign THEM up for YOUR franchise and play the same game with them. They let your parents sign up for you but they won't allow you to consent to your franchise on their behalf, EVEN as a public officer.
g. Abuse words of art, vague and undefined terms on their forms to exploit, enslave, and persecute the innocent and the ignorant. Governments are established to protect the weakest and most vulnerable members of society, not exploit them.
h. Use lies to encourage third parties to STEAL for them and convert private property to a public use without compensation and without consent of the owner.
i. Only provide remedies for “taxpayers”, which means indirectly that they are punishing and persecuting NONtaxpayers unlawfully and thereby violating the requirement for equal protection.
ITS ALL FRAUD because of the wicked people who administer it, not because of what the law says. Its fraud because you can never approach them in equity as an equal. They always skew the rules so that you work for them for free, no matter what. That's not a government, but a MAFIA. Some people in Congress and on Fox news call this “Gangster Government”.
-
Thank you for pointing out those regs, which we hadn't paid much attention to up to this point.
You missed several crucial points.
1. It is NOT a contract in equity, because Constitutional rights are unalienable in relation to a real, de jure government. The Declaration of Independence says rights are unalienable, and the House of Representatives website recognizes the Declaration as “Organic Law” and therefore law. That means they can't be sold, bargained away, or transferred by any commercial process, including a franchise. Hence, government may not make a business out of destroying, taxing, and regulating rights that it was established ONLY to protect and LEAVE ALONE.
2. If the de facto government DID have the authority to contract away rights, then they wouldn't be a government anymore because you can only contract them away to private parties and not real governments. That is why the IRS is NOT part of the U.S. Government. See:
Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…OrigAuthIRS.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. The regs are an implementation of the act itself. Nowhere in the act do the definitions you provided say what you provided and they CANNOT expand the scope of the statute in the regulations. The statutes do not use “the States” trick like they do in the I.R.C. This is covered in:
Why You Aren't Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001, Section 2.
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…NotEligible.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
4. The term “the States” cannot and does not refer to constitutional states of the Union. When they want to refer to constitutional states of the Union, they typically use the phrase “the SEVERAL States”, as they do in the Constitution. I would argue instead that the term “the States” really means federal corporations established as a “res” by the franchise itself and which are foreign states other than territories and possessions. In effect, they are using the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to create “resident persons” called “States” and which are federal corporations receiving franchise benefits under the franchise. This in effect establishes a state within a state and that establishment is a violation of the Constitutional design per Article 4, Section 3.
Quote:U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 3.New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State [statutory State] shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
[SOURCE: http://caselaw.lp.fi…tion/article04/
Saying that the feds cannot create a State within a state is equivalent to saying that they cannot make a Constitutional State into a Statutory State.
5. Next, contracts, including franchises, are not enforceable without MUTUAL consideration and MUTUAL obligation. The SS franchise does not create ANY obligation to pay anything to the “benefit recipient” and therefore, it cannot CREATE any obligation on the part of the recipient. That blows your equity ploy right out of the water. This is covered in:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 21
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/Franchises.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
According to the above, the Supreme Court held that the government does not have to pay anyone ss “benefits”. Another way of stating this, is that all franchises are contracts, and contracts cannot be enforced without consideration. Federal Reserve Notes are not money, so they aren't consideration. They only become money at the point that they are redeemable in substance BY THE GOVERNMENT.
6. You still have the problem to overcome of the U.S. Supreme Court saying in the License Tax Cases that Congress cannot create a “trade or business” in a state in order to tax it, and this in fact is exactly what they have done with trickery using words of art. They have never overruled that case.
7. All attempts to confuse statutory states with Constitutional states are treason and a violation of the separation of powers, as documented in:
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 7.2
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
______________________________
IN CONCLUSION: Much of this discussion is addressed in the following pamphlets that I hope we won't have to duplicate here. You should read these if you haven't already:
1. State Income Taxes, Form #05.031
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…teIncomeTax.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ionOfPowers.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/Franchises.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The above pamphlets conclude that it is a violation of the separation of powers and possibly even a crime to:
1. Offer federal franchises within the borders of a Constitutional state of the Union.
2. Establish a statutory state inside a constitutional state.
3. Treat a constitutional state of the Union as a federal territory or statutory state.
4. Serve as a public officer simultaneously in both the state and federal governments.
5. Allow a jurist to serve in a federal court who is receiving a federal benefit when the subject of the trial is the payment for the benefit. This also rules out even the judge and the prosecutor.
6. Use any federal benefit to bribe someone to occupy a public office, or to use “benefits” to CREATE new public offices. See #3 above, section 2.3.
7. Create a conflict of interest in the judge by allowing him/her to serve as a constitutional judge and a franchise judge at the same time, because they are serving God and mammon. This happens every day in U.S. District Court, which is exclusively a franchise court and yet which pretends to hear constitutional issues.
8. Use any act of legislation to undermine or destroy remedies for the protection of private rights, or to in effect outlaw private rights and private property by making it impossible to own anything as OTHER than a public officer.
9. Offer any federal benefit to a state of the Union as as a means essentially to bribe state officials to disregard the protection or private rights of people under their care and protection, or convert such rights by omission into public rights or franchises under federal law. This is a breach of fiduciary duty by officials on either side of the transaction.
All of the above tactics constitute an “invasion” of Constitutional states of the Union by the federal government within the meaning of Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution. The mandate to protect the states from invasion, including invasion by the feds, is the ONLY mandate found in the constitution. The feds are therefore REQUIRED to protect you from such an invasion and from their own commercial conquest of the states, including by enticing or coercing states citizens to become public officers subject to federal law. Furthermore, the oath you took to support and defend the Constitution as a public officer also ought to cause you to want to prevent all of the above.
As a recipient of government plunder and a public officer, you as usual are trying to rationalize or defend your participation in a system that is so corrupted it is indefensible either from a legal perspective or a Biblical perspective. See:
Social Security: Mark of the Beast
http://famguardian.o…ecurity/TOC.htm
You are doing this to justify continued receipt of the plunder. The fact that said plunder is taken from people who are effectively forced to participate and not allowed to leave ought to be reason enough to justify not participating or receiving anything.
-
We don't have any materials on this site that we are aware of that deal directly with due process hearings. You are probably thinking of our sister website, sedm.org, in which case we don't answer their mail. You will need to go to their website forums to ask questions, and you must be a member in order to post in the forums:
Please do not post questions about their materials in these forums.
If the question relates to materials on this site, be VERY specific and provide a link to the item used, and possibly even post a copy of the irs notice here with the personal information redacted for comment. The forums support PDF attachments.
Please also indicate whether you are following the Path to Freedom, the steps within it that you have completed so far. We won't reward or help people who aren't following the materials completely, or who are cherry picking them. You can't skip steps. See:
-
The total number of psychiatrists in the U.S. has grown very little, while the three largest specialty fields—internal medicine, family practice, and pediatrics—have grown significantly. There are approximately 39,000 psychiatrists and another 6,000 child psychiatrists for a total of 45,000, making psychiatry the fourth largest medical specialty.
the percentage of USMGs entering psychiatry is much lower than the percentage entering other specialties.
Only about 1/2 of the 800 residencies in the US are filled by US medical school graduates. Foreigners make up the rest. http://pn.psychiatry…ent/36/5/3.full and nothing in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is validated by scientific research.
http://ezinearticles…ical?&id=599603
One needs no research skills to get an MD. MDs who go on to teach in university research labs all get a Ph.D.
Psychiatry is an atheistic religion based on the brain farts of people too stupid to do real medicine.
-
Family Guardians,
For a vastly expanded and improved version of the discussion of this topic, see:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 2.3
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/Franchises.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
-
jb,
Thanks for sharing that research.
1. Your research corroborates that the prevailing view of the Executive Branch is that a Fourteenth Amendment citizen is equivalent to an 8 USC 1401 “national and citizen of the United States”.
2. It establishes TWO criteria for being a citizen:
2.1 Born in the “United States”, which seems to mean the COUNTRY and not the federla zone, for the purposes of Title 8. Where you were born is not discretionary because you can’t change it.
2.2 Subject to THE jurisdiction, which seems to depend on domicile. Domicile is discretionary.
3. It SO FAR does not equate the “U.S. citizen” found in the I.R.C. with that found in Title 8. I believe they are two completely different things because the “United States” in the I.R.C. is not the same as Title 8.
What your research does not establish is that the status of being a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” or an 8 USC 1401 “national and citizen of the United States” is in ANY WAY permanent or non-discretionary. Rather, I believe that even if one was born a “citizen of the United States”, they can:
1. Leave the country and go to another, in which case they cease to be “subject to THE jurisdiction” and thereby cease to be a “citizen of the United States” but retain their statutory status as a “national” but not citizen.
2. Change their civil domicile to be outside the “United States”, and accomplish the same result as if they physically left the country.
Hence, regardless of how one is born, the status attributed to oneself retains some level of discretion on the part of the person. One cannot change where they were born, but they can change where they are domiciled, and hence, whether they are a “citizen AND national” or a “non-citizen national”. This subject is analyzed at length in the following document, and section 3.1 of that document was a direct result and fruit of the discussion here, we are told by the author, who has been following this discussion. See:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Section 3.1
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
Therefore, I don’t see how any of this discussion fundamentally changes the above memorandum or the approach to citizenship documented in:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ffCitDomTax.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The main thing we care about is how our citizenship is represented when filling out government forms or applying for a passport. Everything else is academic, and if that end goal is not considered or implemented by applying our discussion to the above forms, then we are wasting our time here. I therefore return this discussion back to earth and close with the following pointed question to you:
What, if anything, would you change about the above forms to make them more consistent with the research you have posted? We aren’t here for entertainment, but to improve the tools available on this site for protecting one’s rights from being usurped by corrupt or presumptuous government employees.
You have already pointed out only one thing you would change in the Affidavit, which is mention that the affiant is a “Fourteenth Amendment” citizen. Is there anything else?
With all that said, thank you for your participation and important contribution to these forums. You add a lot of value on the most important subject discussed here, which is citizenship. You also add a lot of value to the right to travel issue.
-
Here are some authorities on the reference of one of your links to “the fourth branch of government” and its relation to the Fourteenth Amendment. They make no mention here of the Fourteenth Amendment so obviously, they must be referring to a franchise rather than a citizenship status:
Quote:At the outset, one must understand the constitutional nature of the legal proceeding before us. The legal body conducting the proceeding, the Federal Maritime Commission, is an “independent” federal agency. Constitutionally speaking, an “independent” agency belongs neither to the Legislative Branch nor to the Judicial Branch of Government. Although Members of this Court have referred to agencies as a “fourth branch” of Government, FTC v. Ruberoid Co., 343 U.S. 470, 487 (1952) (Jackson, J., dissenting), the agencies, even “independent” agencies, are more appropriately considered to be part of the Executive Branch. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 910 (1991) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). The President appoints their chief administrators, typically a Chairman and Commissioners, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Cf. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 723 (1986). The agencies derive their legal powers from congressionally enacted statutes. And the agencies enforce those statutes, i.e., they “execute” them, in part by making rules or by adjudicating matters in dispute. Cf. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 428-429 (1935).The Court long ago laid to rest any constitutional doubts about whether the Constitution permitted Congress to delegate rulemaking and adjudicative powers to agencies. E.g., ICC v. Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. R. Co., 167 U.S. 479, 494-495 (1897) (permitting rulemaking); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 46 (1932) (permitting adjudication); Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 852 (1986) (same). That, in part, is because the Court established certain safeguards surrounding the exercise of these powers. See, e.g., A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) (nondelegation doctrine); Crowell, supra (requiring judicial review). And the Court denied that those activities as safeguarded, however much they might resemble the activities of a legislature or court, fell within the [535 U.S. 774] scope of Article I or Article III of the Constitution. Schechter Poultry, supra, at 529-530; Crowell, supra, at 50-53; see also INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 953, n. 16 (1983) (agency's use of rulemaking “resemble
,” but is not, lawmaking). Consequently, in exercising those powers, the agency is engaging in an Article II, Executive Branch activity. And the powers it is exercising are powers that the Executive Branch of Government must possess if it is to enforce modern law through administration.This constitutional understanding explains why both commentators and courts have often attached the prefix “quasi” to descriptions of an agency's rulemaking or adjudicative functions. E.g., Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 629 (1935); 3 C. Koch, Administrative Law and Practice § 12.13 (2d ed. 1997); Shapiro, The Choice of Rulemaking or Adjudication in the Development of Administrative Policy, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 921, 954-958 (1965); Friendly, The Federal Administrative Agencies: The Need for Better Definition of Standards, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 863, 869-870 (1962). The terms “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-adjudicative” indicate that the agency uses legislative-like or court-like procedures, but that it is not, constitutionally speaking, either a legislature or a court. See Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 472-473 (2001); Freytag, supra, at 910 (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
The case before us presents a fairly typical example of a federal administrative agency's use of agency adjudication. Congress has enacted a statute, the Shipping Act of 1984 (Act or Shipping Act), 46 U.S.C.App. § 1701 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V), which, among other things, forbids marine terminal operators to discriminate against terminal users. § 1709(d)(4) (1994 ed., Supp. V). The Act grants the Federal Maritime Commission the authority to administer the Act. The law grants the Commission the authority to enforce the Act in a variety of ways — for example, by making rules and [535 U.S. 775] regulations, § 1716 (1994 ed.), by issuing or revoking licenses, § 1718 (1994 ed., Supp. V), and by conducting investigations and issuing reports, see generally § 1710 (1994 ed. and Supp. V). It also permits a private person to file a complaint, which the Commission is to consider. § 1710(a) (1994 ed.). Interestingly enough, it does not say that the Commission must determine the merits of the complaint through agency adjudication, see § 1710(g) (1994 ed., Supp. V) — though, for present purposes, I do not see that this statutory lacuna matters.
[Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, No. 01-46, Argued February 25, 2002, Decided May 28, 2002, 535 U.S. 743]
-
2. The Department of State DOES NOT agree with you or disagree with me. The quote you provided identifies the “United States” as “the country” and not the federal zone: “under the protection of the country” Obviously, they don’t mean the federal zone in the FAM cite you provided, but the COUNTRY. This same reference to the “country” is the context for the following:
2.1 The phrase ” domiciled within the United States.“,which can then ONLY mean the COUNTRY, and not federal zone exclusively.
2.1 The phrase “subject to THE jurisdiction”.
Because it relates to the COUNTRY, it can only be a political status and not a legal status. Legal/statutory status always refers to a political subdivision within the country.
3. Thank you for that clarification on 8 USC 1401 relationships. However, those references do not make the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, and 8 USC 1401 equivalent or establish that the “national and citizen of the United States” under 8 USC 1401 is equivalent to the Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”. The cites you provided also are based on the FAM, which isn’t legal evidence of anything. It’s internal policy for the DOS. It is a good clue, however to what they think and believe about what the law says.
4. Your link to “[url url=”http://www.nmid.usco…-02-0039-18.pdf/”]http://www.nmid.usco…-02-0039-18.pdf[/url]” doesn’t work. It needs to be fixed.
5. It doesn’t matter what status they assume is connected with what other status. You have a right to associate and not associate. If you don’t want the liabilities of any particular status other than possibly “national”, you don’t have to declare it. It’s voluntary. That’s the beauty of being free. We prove this in:
Why you are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Section 3.1
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
-
Our response is that:
1. You have your mind made up.
2. Your approach to citizenship at this point is a policy and not a law issue.
3. No amount arguing is going to change your mind.
4. You can't prove and haven't proven that a Fourteenth Amendment constitutional citizen is equivalent to a statutory citizen in 8 USC 1401. You argue otherwise, but it is an opinion with no proof. No evidence you have presented PROVES by the admission of either a statute or a court ruling that they are, in fact, equivalent. WHERE in 7 FAM 1100 does it expressly say that a statutory and constitutional citizen are equivalent. Remember:
4.1 A statutory citizen is called “national and citizen of the United States” in 8 USC 1401
4.2 A constitutional citizen is called a “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment or a “Citizen” in the original constitution.
To prove your assertion, the language you must locate is that “A fourteenth amendment 'citizen of the United states' is equivalent to the 'national and citizen of the United States' found in 8 USC 1401.” PRECISELY where is that legal evidence of such language found? NO PRESUMPTIONS PLEASE. Absent evidence, you cannot make that statement and that language appears no where in the 7 FAM 1100 link you provided nor in anything else we have looked at.
Until you prove this critical PRESUMPTION with evidence, we are entitled per the maxims of law to presume that they are NOT the same.
Quote:“Talis non est eadem, nam nullum simile est idem.What is like is not the same, for nothing similar is the same. 4 Co. 18.”
[Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856
SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…viersMaxims.htm]
5. As far as your answer to item 12, you are wrong according to IRS pub 519. See:
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 6
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf
They say that everyone in Puerto Rico and American Samoa are nonresident aliens and should file with a resident alien tax return, the 1040.
6. As far as your answer to #8, we already showed you several cases by the supreme court and the annotated amendment which all concur that a Fourteenth Amendment citizen does NOT include corporations and includes ONLY human beings. Since you haven't rebutted that WITH EVIDENCE, then you admit it per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6). You are just too proud to admit you are wrong on this subject, which is why we gave up on this topic. But remember: “Pride comes before destruction, and haughtiness before a fall”, according to the Bible.
7. As far as your answer to #1, we don't agree. They are called Amendments because they are PART of the combined constitution. Considering amendments as NOT part of the EFFECTIVE constitution as a whole is ridiculous.
This is a standoff because you won't prove they are equivalent with evidence. Hence, what remains is what the courts call a “political question” beyond the scope of these forums that we choose not to discuss further. All such arguments are a supreme waste of our valuable time that detracts from more important efforts.
We have much more important things to do. The Bible says not to argue with a scoffer. Anyone who argues a position without evidence is a scoffer. Please leave us alone.