fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
My peace I give to youPeace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid. (John 14:27)
“What kind of peace is it that Jesus gives? It is a positive good, more than the absence of enmity and strife; it is a gift of wholeness, being made well, reconciled, saved and knowing God. It is both inward and outward, both a matter of how we are within ourselves and how we are related to others. It is both horizontal and vertical. It is concerns our relationships on earth and above all how we are related to God. Indeed the key to all the other qualities of peace is in that primary relationship with God.
Peace and wholeness are brought together in the healing miracles of Jesus:-
- He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.” — Mark 5:34 [woman who had suffered haemorrhages for twelve years]
- [*]And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” — Luke 7:50 [woman at the house of the Pharisee, after washing his feet with her tears and anointing them]
From Old Testament times peace was understood as a general state of well being:
- I will make with them a covenant of peace and banish wild animals from the land, so that they may live in the wild and sleep in the woods securely. {26} I will make them and the region around my hill a blessing; and I will send down the showers in their season; they shall be showers of blessing. {27} The trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield its increase. They shall be secure on their soil; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I break the bars of their yoke, and save them from the hands of those who enslaved them. — Ezekiel 34:23-27
Peace was a result of being in a good relationship with God, of being looked upon favourably by him:
- The LORD bless you and keep you; {25} the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; {26} the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace. — Numbers 6:24-26 [REB 6:26 may the Lord look kindly on you and give you peace]
- [*]This is like the days of Noah to me: Just as I swore that the waters of Noah would never again go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you and will not rebuke you. {10} For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the LORD, who has compassion on you. — Isaiah 54:9-10
Jesus knew that he had to face the hard realities.
In his farewell discourses Jesus was preparing the disciples for his departure, essentially to be prepared for his final battle and the gifts that would flow to them from his victory — so he was to leave them peace through his suffering. It is his parting gift — such as the world cannot give, because his way of giving through sacrifice is different from the way the world give through strength.
That was the fulfillment of the words of Isaiah which linked the suffering servant with the gift of peace:
- But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole(1), and by his bruises we are healed. — Isaiah 53:5
- [*]And now I have told you this before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may believe. {30} I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me; {31} but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us be on our way. — John 14:29-31(1)
And so we receive the blessing of peace with God through what Christ won for us when he was clearly established as the Lord of all, as the apostles were to proclaim:
- You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ–he is Lord of all. — Acts 10:36
When we receive that message of the Lordship of Christ, established through his death and resurrection, we through faith are reconciled to God, we have peace with our Creator, and we begin to share in the process of transformation in which all things are made new in the peace of the kingdom. The renewed peace we have with God is the foundation of the great gift of peace to be shared by humanity in relationships between all sorts of people. It is another way of expressing the great commandment to love one another, now actually realized as the basic law to love God and love your neighbour has become a practical possibility. When the risen Lord Jesus stood before his disciples and said “Peace be with you”, it was indeed a fulfilment of the promise made at his parting, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you”. Now that he had conquered sin and death it was the gift of peace with God and amongst all those people who would hear the good news and believe it. May we all be so blessed. Praise to him through whom we have received the gift of peace. Amen.”
May you have that peace today.
-
Neo,
We agree with Franklin. The following article explains, from a biblical perspective, why he is correct:
The Unlimited Liability Universe
http://famguardian.o…ityUniverse.htm
Furthermore, the reason why healthcare costs are out of control is because:
1. Insurance companies have deep pockets.
2. Health insurance encourages people to make BAD health choices, like fast food, not exercising, smoking, etc.
3. Health insurance dis-incentivizes people to shop around or comparison shop or question the cost of healthcare.
The reason Obamacare was necessary is because of the above factors, and it will make things MUCH WORSE, not better.
Case in point is Mexico. People there don't have insurance, but care is very affordable.
Furthermore, if your “weaker vessel” significant other, who offers you the booty franchise, would divorce you over your stance on this issue, then we know she isn't a wife, but a prostitute, and that marriage license is a prostitution license from her pimp, which is the government. Eve was a pimp for the serpent, and she ate the fruit because he offered her INSURANCE:
Quote:“If you eat of this fruit, you SHALL NOT surely die, AND you will be LIKE a god [accountable to NO ONE].”Everything after eve was downhill from there. Isn't insurance just a way to evade personal responsibility and liability. Anyone, including a so-called “wife”, who places a commercial criteria for whether they engage in sexual acts or sleep in the same bed clearly is a prostitute. Don't dare tell her that, because:
1. You might wake of one day without a pecker because Lorena cut it off.
2. You might find yourself a victim of a month or more long “booty boycott”.
Is it any wonder why the birth rate is down and the divorce rate is sky high? Self-respecting men who want a wife instead of a prostitute can't find any females who are not STATE prostitutes. The sex comes during the marriage, and the money comes after the marriage: Prostituion on the lay-away plan. And after your average john realizes what the government has done to him and wants out of the prostitution arrangement, he has to ask the pimp family court judge for permission and settle the sex bill.
And a famous french proverb sums up the situation masterfully:Quote:“A husband is a banker and insurance company provided by nature.”There is a VERY good reason why:
1. The average difference in age at first marriage between the man and woman is 4.5 years.
2. Women will not marry unless they can be guaranteed “security”, which translates into “economic security”. Right MR JOHN?
3. The number one cause of divorce is ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, not emotional or relational problems.
4. The most frequent source of arguments between husband and wife are MONEY problems.
If you want evidence corroborating the above, see:
Family Constitution
http://famguardian.o…FamilyConst.htm
Sovereign Christian Marriage, Form #06.009
http://sedm.org/khxc…ristianMarriage
Lastly, health and life insurance are sold by promoting fear and insecurity among potential customers. That fear is what makes humans STUPID and easy to manipulate, as Stefan Molyeux proves:
The Story of Your Enslavement
http://famguardian1….Enslavement.wmv
The above video proves why Jesus said NOT to fear for the future and to trust in the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul rather than trusting in any man, government of men, or insurance company. See:
Matt. 6:25:31
http://www.biblegate…+6&version=NKJV
On the brighter side, there is no legal requirement that insurance companies must force their clients to have or use ssns or tins. If you really cared about being sovereign or responsible for yourself or answering the question, you would have started the lead post in this forum with a list of ALL the insurance companies you called and the subset of them that will provide insurance to those with no ssn or tin. We know of at least two, but we are going to let you do the homework and post it here for all to enjoy. Don't ask is to reveal it, but rather answer the question for yourself with your own sruvey and post it here. That is how you will prove to us that you REALLY care. Otherwise, we won't reward irresponsibility. Sovereignty BEGINS with personal responsibility.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just the messenger. Please also don't take these comments personally, but they are the naked truth. Don't ask questions in these forums unless you want a COMPLETE and HONEST answer unclouded by political correctness. Sorry.
-
Neo,
That's interesting and completely consistent with our understanding of the whole picture, and completely consistent with everything on this website on the subject. Thanks for sharing that.
The only thing that might confuse you is our recent references to the federal income tax applying to federal territory per 4 USC 110(d)'s definition of “the states”. However, even those “The States”, like states of the Union, are legislatively “foreign” and “alien” in regard to at least the I.R.C. Subtitles A through C income taxes, as both you and the IRS publications correctly point out.
The evidence that you point out confirms the following:
1. That the “United States” means the government in the I.R.C., and all “persons”, “U.S. citizens”, and “U.S. residents” are public officers or public offices in the government.
2. That those with earnings from “sources within the United States” are receiving government payments as said public officers per 26 USC 864(c )(3).
3. That the “United States” means the District of Columbia, and therefore that even federal territories and possessions are foreign jurisdictions because the tax is a municipal income tax for D.C. on ALIENS only. See 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).
4. That you can receive government payments even as a human being domiciled outside of D.C. in a territory or possession, and that when you do, you are treated as a resident alien because you are occupying a public office in the U.S. government that is resident in D.C.
5. That they want you to file form 1040 in order to waive sovereign immunity and consent to the foreign jurisdiction of the District of Columbia under 28 USC 1605(a)(2).
I don't see any conflict at all with what our materials say. They are completely consistent and also demonstrate what they really mean by “United States” in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), which obviously can mean all those serving in public offices in the District of Columbia. The income tax has worked this way from the beginning. Even the Supreme Court admitted the extends whereever the government extends, meaning public offices extend, because it is a franchise tax connected with public offices in the U.S. government.
Quote:“Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L. ed. 98, was an action of trespass or, as appears by the original record, replevin, brought in the circuit court for the District of Columbia to try the right of Congress to impose a direct tax for general purposes on that District. 3 Stat. at L. 216, chap. 60. It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in one as legislating [182 U.S. 244, 260] for the states; in the other as a local legislature for the District of Columbia. In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under art. 1, 8, giving to Congress the power 'to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises,' which 'shall be uniform throughout the United States,' inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States [described in the Constitution]. It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States. The fact that art. 1 , 2, declares that 'representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states . . . according to their respective numbers' furnished a standard by which taxes were apportioned, but not to exempt any part of the country from their operation. 'The words used do not mean that direct taxes shall be imposed on states only which are represented, or shall be apportioned to representatives; but that direct taxation, in its application to states, shall be apportioned to numbers.' That art. 1, 9, 4, declaring that direct taxes shall be laid in proportion to the census, was applicable to the District of Columbia, 'and will enable Congress to apportion on it its just and equal share of the burden, with the same accuracy as on the respective states. If the tax be laid in this proportion, it is within the very words of the restriction. It is a tax in proportion to the census or enumeration referred to.' It was further held that the words of the 9th section did not 'in terms require that the system of direct taxation, when resorted to, shall be extended to the territories, as the words of the 2d section require that it shall be extended to all the states. They therefore may, without violence, be understood to give a rule when the territories shall be taxed, without imposing the necessity of taxing them.'”“There could be no doubt as to the correctness of this conclusion, so far, at least, as it applied to the District of Columbia. This District had been a part of the states of Maryland and [182 U.S. 244, 261] Virginia. It had been subject to the Constitution, and was a part of the United States[***]. The Constitution had attached to it irrevocably.
There are steps which can never be taken backward. The tie that bound the states of Maryland and Virginia to the Constitution could not be dissolved, without at least the consent of the Federal and state governments to a formal separation. The mere cession of the District of Columbia to the Federal government relinquished the authority of the states, but it did not take it out of the United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution. Neither party had ever consented to that construction of the cession. If, before the District was set off, Congress had passed an unconstitutional act affecting its inhabitants, it would have been void. If done after the District was created, it would have been equally void; in other words, Congress could not do indirectly, by carving out the District, what it could not do directly. The District still remained a part of the United States, protected by the Constitution. Indeed, it would have been a fanciful construction to hold that territory which had been once a part of the United States ceased to be such by being ceded directly to the Federal government.”[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]There are a lot more examples like the ones you point out in the regulations themselves. Everything is entirely consistent with the fact that it is a franchise or excise tax upon public offices that can ONLY be lawfully executed in D.C. per 4 USC 72. Everything outside D.C. is foreign and alien, and all “individuals” are aliens per 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3). Hence, the tax essentially is a tax on government contractors contracting with uncle through the Social Security, Medicare, and Income tax franchise contracts. All these contracts are private law that activates by the consent of those who are subject. They evidence their consent by filing “resident” forms and waiving their sovereign immunity in filing resident alien tax forms. That's how federalism works.
-
Answers:
1. The “Why you are a ‘national’ pamphlet question you pointed out starting on p. 125, question 20, was inaccurate. We replaced the quote from 8 USC 1452(a) with 8 USC 1452(b).
2. Step 4.15 of the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online that you pointed us to has been completely rewritten in response to your post and the document pointed to within it has been removed. You can examine the new page at:
http://famguardian.o…tmtAnnually.htm
3. The difference betweeen the upper case “Citizen” and lower case “citizen” is described in:
3.1 Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Section 15.3
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
3.2 These forums at:
http://famguardian.o…?showtopic=3951
4. We agree with the article that the term “United States of America” as presently used by the government means a corporation and a creation of the de facto “United States”. That corporation is described at:
SEDM Exhibits Page, Exhibit #08.007
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX08.007.pdf
EXHIBITS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Exhi…xhibitIndex.htm
As long as one always clarifies the CONTEXT in which the term “United States of America” is being used, which is that found in the Articles of Confederation or USA Constitution and NOT the statutory meaning, then there is no harm done. As is pointed out in the following, the statutory context almost universally implies the corporation de facto government and excludes private parties:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…StatLawGovt.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
5. You are ignoring 8 USC 1452(b), which talks NOT about “Certificates of Citizenship”, but “Certificates of Non citizen nationality”
http://travel.state….enship_781.html
As we told you before, we don’t care about “Certificates of Citizenship” issued under 8 USC 1452(a) in these forums and we won’t concern ourselves with them. Yes, we did accidentally mention them in the place you pointed us to in the “Why you are a ‘national'” pamphlet, and that was clearly a mistake that we then fixed by pointing it to 8 USC 1452(b) instead of (a). Neither status you raise issue with is typically undertaken to obtain recognition of the status of being a non-citizen national so we aren’t interested in the differences nor are they relevant to the subject of sovereignty. Therefore, we won’t discuss them here or compare the forms as you requested, because they are irrelevant to our goals. However, when applying for one, if we were faced with the requirement to fill out an N-600 form, we would attach:
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
If a person in the situation you described applied for a passport, they could also use the same procedure as others on this website:
http://famguardian.o…orAPassport.htm
6. Section 1 of the article you reference by Freeman at:
http://famguardian.o…vestigation.htm
. . .admittedly does conflict with our views on citizenship. So does section 27, which you didn’t mention. The original article was written by someone else over ten years ago, and was in severe need of an update because of new and extensive citizenship research on this site since then. Hence, we can understand how it might have confused you. For that reason, we have modified the article to:
6.1 Improve the appearance.
6.2 Add reference links to the beginning.
6.3 Preface it with an editorial clarifying the differences between our views and his and pointing to detailed materials that rebut his views.
6.4 Updated sections 1 and 27 to make it consistent with other content on this website.
Please inform us whether the changes we made to the freeman article, section 1 above are sufficient to address your concerns and harmonize the article with the remainder of the content on this website.
Thanks for your feedback, which has helped remove inconsistencies in our website, reduce and eliminate confusion, and make our materials more relevant and immediately useful to our valued audience.
-
freedomfighter,
Thanks for your feedback. You commented on materials allegedly on this site, but we don't engage in speculation. Please provide the:
1. Link.
2. Page number
3. Line number
4. Version number
. . .of the allegedly conflicting statements that are confusing you or contradicting themselves so they can be examined IN CONTEXT and if need be, corrected. Please ensure that the link you give uses a base address at http://famguardian.org, because we aren't responsible for our sister site or any of the hundreds of other websites that we also link to. We can only answer for what we have written.
The only Affidavit of Material Facts we are aware of is not on this site, but our sister site, and therefore is irrelevant. Furthermore, that document doesn't contain the language you allege it contains:
Affidavit of Material Facts, Form #02.002
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…AffMatFacts.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Now you are the one creating the confusion. If you take issue with the above document, this is not the place to post questions about it. The lower left corner of the document says it is from sedm.org, not famguardian.org, and we don't answer their mail. Please post questions about the above document or anything at the sedm.org base address to their forums and not ours:
Please identify the SPECIFIC sources ON THIS SITE and NOT on the above site that says the “United States of America” is owned by the United States. We can't find it. Do NOT quote external links to any third party that we aren't responsible for.
You are confusing a “Certificate of Citizenship” by birth abroad to an American with a Certificate of Non-citizen national status under 8 USC 1452. The title of the section uses the word “OR”, meaning that the section addresses how to issue TWO separate and different types of certificates. You appear to be confused because you are not reading the statute carefully enough or are acting presumptuously about what it means:
http://www.law.corne…52—-000-.html
We don't claim and never have claimed that these two different certificates are the same.
1. Non-citizen national certificates are issued under 8 USC 1452(b). may be issued to those who already have proof of citizenship by already having a USA passport
2. Certificates of Citizenship are issued under 8 USC 1452(a). Usually requested usually BEFORE obtaining a passport.
The two are different and we aren't experts on Certificates of Citizenship. We don't see any need to become experts. We treat “Certificates of Non-citizen national status” under 8 USC 1452(b) as a SEPARATE issue from the one you are asking about.
For the purposes of your answer, whatever you don't expressly rebut and deny WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, you are presumed to agree and consent to under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6).
-
More Wisdom from Chief White Hawk
Interview with Chief White Hawk
So . . . Chief White Hawk what words of wisdom do you have for us today.
- No trust white chief who break treaty many times. [*]No trust chief in black robe and hammer. He kidnap many. [*]No trust man in black clothes with gun and red light on moving wagon. He tax collector for white chief in black robe and hammer.
Chief White Hawk what do you think about our first black president?- He no right to be chief who not born in land. [*]No trust black chief who blame former white chief for everything. [*]No trust black chief. He have secret religion. [*]No trust black chief who invite enemy to live in land. [*]No trust black chief who no protect reservation from those who sneak on to reservation to steal what do not belong to them. [*]No trust black chief who smile a lot, talk a lot, but no do a lot. [*]No trust black chief with fever. He no give medicine if cost a lot. [*]No trust black chief with white man sickness. Take too long to get help. [*]No trust black chief who take credit for everything and he give no glory to Great Spirit. [*]No trust black chief who do not know Great Spirit. [*]No trust black chief with black oil spill in great waters. He who not born in land have no love for the land. [*]No trust black chief who use oil crisis to take away freedom. [*]No trust black chief who think green paper change everything. [*]No trust black chief who win peace prize before he do something great. [*]No trust black chief who no smoke peace pipe with friends. [*]No trust black chief who talk a lot but have no experience to handle canoe in mighty waters.
Thanks ChiefChief White Hawk speaks the truth. He and his people have been fighting tyranny for 400 years.
Reporter for Red Bluff Gazette.
-
Dick,
Please install the latest free Adobe Acrobat Reader. You either have an older version or you are using an incompatible third party reader product:
-
We hear much about the need to reform government these days, but reforms of the state by politicians who reject the Ten Commandments are no more to be trusted than Italians seeking to reform the Mafia.
The government is simply a reflection of the spiritual condition of its citizenry; because Americans have neglected a study of Ten Commandments, it should be no surprise that politicians are corrupt and twisted. The need in this country at its root is spiritual; that is, a return to Biblical roots—especially the Ten Commandments as the rule of law.
How the Government Breaks the Ten Commandments1. It breaks the First Commandment b]no gods before Me[/b by replacing God's law-source with humanistic law, and by setting itself up as a god to care for citizens from cradle to grave.
2. It breaks the Second Commandment b]no idols[/b by subsidizing its own humanistic law-order and alienating men from God's law under the principle of separation of church and state.
3. It breaks the Third Commandment b]taking His name in vain[/b by egesting oaths taken in the name of the living God and replacing it with contracts to man.
4. It breaks the Fourth Commandment b]keep the Sabbath day holy[/b by desecrating the Christian Sabbath and treating all days and all religions as equal.
5. It breaks the Fifth Commandment b]honor your father and mother[/b by training children in public schools to honor the government and to question the authority of mom and dad.
6. It breaks the Sixth Commandment b]do not murder[/b by protecting baby-killers, by not protecting human life in the womb, and by abolishing the death penalty for murderers.
7. It breaks the Seventh Commandment b]do not commit adultery[/b by accepting adultery as normal behavior, nullifying laws against adultery, and weakening the family to strengthen the State.
8. It breaks the Eighth Commandment b]do not steal[/b by stealing from its citizens through unconstitutional, and unbiblical tax schemes, franchises, and licenses.
9. It breaks the Ninth Commandment b]do not bear false witness[/b by slandering and maligning and jailing anyone who exposes corruption within government administrations.
10. It breaks the Tenth Commandment b]do not defraud your neighbor[/b by institutionalizing fraud in order to enslave and impoverish citizens so the government has control of all wealth, all corporations, and all people in this country.
This country will not change for good until citizens insist their elected officials honor the Ten Commandments and hold themselves accountable to the Christian God . . . but we cannot expect unregenerate men to be supportive of Christian law. Therefore, Christians must be involved in the political process at all levels always ready to defend the faith and to act on “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.”
-
jb,
INTRODUCTION:
The cases you cite are referring to “subject to ITS jurisdiction” as a SUBSET of “subject to THE jurisdiction”.
1. The U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark agreed that “subject to THE jurisdiction” meant the political jurisdiction.
2. The U.S. Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell admitted that “subject to THEIR jurisdiction” was not the same as “subject to THE jurisdiction” and that “subject to THE jurisdiction” includes places outside of states of the Union. However, that jurisdiction is POLITICAL, according to Wong Kim Ark, and NOT legislative.
The “subject to ITS jurisdiction” subset applies to those who are citizens of the United States but NOT citizens of a state of the Union.
Quote:“It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. “[Slaughterhouse cases, , 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
Hence, the people they are talking about are domiciled on federal territory that is not within the boundaries of any specific state of the Union. We call these people “statutory citizens”. See:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Section 3 to 3.3
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
SPECIFIC CASES:
I have examined the last three cases you cite, downloaded them, and annotated them. Here are my comments on specific cases, in date sequence:
1. Slaughterhouse cases, , 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
The court on p. 73 quotes the 14th Amendment and then changes the language without explanation by using “subject to ITS jurisdiction” in describing it. There is no basis for doing this. The 14th Amendment doesn’t have that language so the court misquoted it.
2. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
The court is quoting a prior Justice Miller, who was then referring to the Fourteenth Amendment language. He misquoted the amendment just like the Slaughterhouse cases.
This case also contradicts itself, because it also uses the phrase “subject to THE jurisdiction” in describing the Fourteenth Amendment:
Quote:“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.‘ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political jurisdiction, and owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”3. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
The court does the same thing: misquotes the Fourteenth Amendment.
CONCLUSION:
None of the three cites you provide:
1. Bothers to distinguish from “subject to ITS jurisdiction” and “subject to THE jurisdiction”.
2. Makes one a subset of another.
3. Indicates any change relative to previous policy.
Instead, all three cases are simply misquotes of the Fourteenth Amendment. The phrase “subject to ITS jurisdiction” appears NOWHERE within the Fourteenth Amendment.
We see no reason any of these cases might be construed to change the meaning of the phrase “subject to ITS jurisdiction” to include states of the Union. Instead, it was just careless dicta that is immaterial.
The first two cases, in fact, occurred BEFORE Downes v. Bidwell, which distinguished the two contexts as follows in an effort to clarify the confusion:
Quote:“The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude ‘within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,’ is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union. To say that the phraseology of this amendment was due to the fact that it was intended to prohibit slavery in the seceded states, under a possible interpretation that those states were no longer a part of the Union, is to confess the very point in issue, since it involves an admission that, if these states were not a part of the Union, they were still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States [because they were federal territory until the rejoined the Union].Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.’ Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to persons born in any place ‘subject to their jurisdiction.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
One other important point needs to be emphasized. The U.S. government has exclusive jurisdiction over aliens and resident aliens unless and until they are naturalized. Then all jurisdiction ceases and the state takes over. The Nikoi case deals with aliens and resident aliens. Hence, these persons would be “subject to ITS jurisdiction”. Those who are in fact and in deed not constitutional aliens because born or naturalized in the country somewhere would not fit this description AFTER they are naturalized. Hence, they would be:
1. “Subject to THE jurisdiction” or “subject to THEIR jurisdiction”
2. NOT “subject to ITS jurisdiction”, meaning the legislative jurisdiction of the national government.
-
1. YES, please continue to post research on the subject of this thread. We very much appreciate your participation.
2. We don't have a clue where the court in Nikoi came up with “subject to ITS jurisdiction”, because it isn't referred to anywhere in the Constitution. Hence, they could only be referring to a statutory and not constitutional citizen identified in 8 USC 1401. That seems very clear. Statutory citizens are the only ones “subject to ITS jurisdiction.”
3. The case you cite doesn't form any kind of precedent:
3.1 Even the IRS says they aren't obligated to change their position for any court ruling EXCEPT the U.S. Supreme Court. See IRS 4.10.7.2.8.
3.2 The U.S. Supreme Court has held in Erie Railroad that there is no federal common law within states of the Union. Hence, it is irrelevant to a state citizen.
4. These forums are very time consuming. It is entirely unrealistic to expect US and ONLY US to answer every one of your posts. So please don't get indignant when they don't get answered by us. Why don't you invite some of your freedom loving friends to participate and contribute. We can't do everything. It's a full time job just to keep up the content of this site, let alone respond to the posters on this forum. Please be respectful of demands you place upon our time. We are spread very thin. We must choose our battles carefully and sparingly.
-
When we say “keep this up”, we mean keep posting without providing the authority you referenced at the end of EACH post. Every post that has a quote without the authority it derives from and possibly the web link, if there is one, will be deleted. Please exercise your due diligence and indicate your authorities. We don’t like having to keep post questions and then having to go back and update your posts to add the authorities and delete the questions and answers afterward. We have much more important things to do.
All authorities cited must follow a very particular format.
1. Put the authority in brackets at the end.
2. Indicate the case name or statute or regulation.
3. Specify after it the volume number and page number
4. Specify the year.
The above is the standard form prescribed in the legal bluebook. You ought to be familiar with that format by now after reading thousands of pages of our writings.
-
If there were, then:
1. Every country in the world would be guilty of the crime, and they would commit it every time they stamp a passport during your passage through the country.
2. The government would violate the intent of the following statute, which protects people possessing or applying for a passport from compelled membership in any group. The purpose of such an endorsement would be to indicate your choice of memberwhip.
Quote:22 USC 2721§ 2721. Impermissible basis for denial of passports
A passport may not be denied issuance, revoked, restricted, or otherwise limited because of any speech, activity, belief, affiliation, or membership, within or outside the United States, which, if held or conducted within the United States, would be protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
-
You didn’t provide authorities for ALL your cites. The following authority source is not identified. If you keep this up, we will DELETE your post. Everything you post must have the source identified and WILL NOT be responded to until it is.
Quote:(a) While overriding national interests may justify a citizenship requirement in the federal service even though an identical requirement may not be enforced by a State, the federal power over aliens is not so plenary that any agent of the Federal Government may arbitrarily subject all resident aliens to different substantive rules from those applied to citizens. When the Federal Government asserts an overriding national interest to justify a discriminatory rule that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if adopted by a State, due process requires that there be a legitimate basis for presuming that the rule was actually intended to serve that interest. Pp. 99-105. 426 US 88 Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong -
What you are suggesting essentially amounts to the same thing that members are already required to do when submitting any government form. They are required to:
1. Attach the following form:
Affidavit of Citizenship, DOmicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Say above or near their signature, “Form not valid, false, and fraudulent without attached signed Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status”.
The above generates lots of unrebutted evidence of your status in the public record that will stand up in court and which poisons anything and everything they could use to make false and self serving presumptions about your status.
We don't know of a reason why ALSO doing what you suggest would not help protect your status, but this is not legal advice or even factual speech.
-
SOURCE: http://www.justice.g…/txdv091344.htm
____________
LOS ANGELES AREA TAX PREPARER SENTENCEDTO SIX MONTHS IN PRISON FOR VIOLATING INJUNCTION
WASHINGTON – James A. Mattatall of Torrance, Calif., was sentenced yesterday to six months in prison for violating a permanent injunction, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced. U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson sentenced Mattatall to the maximum sentence allowable under law.
In 2004, a permanent injunction was entered which barred Mattatall from preparing tax returns for others and representing persons before the IRS. In September 2009, Mattatall was convicted of criminal contempt following a one-day trial before Judge Dean Pregerson, who had also entered the injunction against Mattatall.
According to evidence presented at trial, Mattatall violated the injunction by continuing to prepare tax returns and represent customers before the IRS after he was enjoined from doing so. Additionally, Mattatall attempted to evade detection by not signing returns he prepared and by using an alias when representing customers before the IRS.
According to statements made by Judge Pregerson at the sentencing hearing, a maximum sentence was important to accomplish the societal interests in fostering respect for the law and deterring others from breaking the tax laws. The court noted that sending a message that those who violate injunctions will face jail time was an important goal of the sentence. Judge Pregerson cautioned Mattatall not to construct an “alternative universe” that justifies disobeying tax laws, while ordinary taxpayers meet their tax obligations in a law-abiding manner.
“The court's strong sentence shows there are serious criminal consequences to violating injunctions,” said John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department's Tax Division. “The Justice Department is committed to prosecuting any enjoined tax preparer or promoter who violates an injunction.”
Acting Assistant Attorney General DiCicco commended the efforts of the IRS-Criminal Investigation Division agents who investigated the case, as well as trial attorney Michael Pahl and Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Conte of the Central District of California, who prosecuted the case.