fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Neo,
We agree with everything you said EXCEPT the following:
1. We would attach the following to explain our status instead of a custom attachment. No sense reinventing the wheel:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Form…ffCitDomTax.pdf
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Otherwise, thanks for your contribution to and your passion for this subject. If you were to attach the above form, would you make any changes or improvements to it to make it better suited for use with the I9?
2. This ministry DOES NOT advocate that its members ONLY “obey all laws”, but rather that they:
2.1 LEARN the law.
2.2. Obey all laws they are subject to.
2.3 Make themselves subject to the minimum laws possible by not signing up for government franchises and not misrepresenting their status as someone who is even eligible to participate in government franchises.
Your analysis has helped to emphasize that as with other government forms, public servants are pursuing the following CRIMINAL activities in order to STEAL from people they are supposed to be protecting:
1. Playing word of art games with “United States” on the I9 by confusing the GEOGRAPHIC context with the GOVERNMENT context.
2. Confusing Statutory “U.S. citizens” under Title 26 with Constitutional “citizens of the United States***” in order to STEAL from people outside their jurisdiction.
3. Confusing GOVERNMENT employment with PRIVATE employment to gather information about private activities that they have no legal right to have. Hence, more THEFT by presumption and deception.
The above forms of abuse of language to violate due process of law are thoroughly documented in:
Meaning of the words “includes” and “including”
http://famguardian.o…c/Includess.pdf
In particular, the specific types of abuse described here are documented in section 2.3. That section emphasizes that CONTEXT is everything and also identifies the various contexts that are being confused.
-
I disagree. Everyone CANNOT lawfully contract to acquire a status under the public officer franchise codified in Title 26, Subtitles A and C, such as “person”, “employer”, “employee”, or “taxpayer”.
1. According to the Declaration of Independence, which is organic law, Constitutional rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be contracted or bargained away through any commercial process.
2. You cannot unilaterally elect yourself into public office by filling out any government form.
3. The Internal Revenue Code does not authorize the CREATION of any new public offices, but regulates the conduct of EXISTING public offices lawfully created by Title 5 of the U.S. Code.
Hence, the “employment” relationship cannot be CREATED by a W-4, but simply RECOGNIZED by a W-4. 31 U.S.C. 321(d) says all “taxes” under the I.R.C. are “gifts”. The W-4 is a gift form for public officers ALREADY serving on official business.
Quote:TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE I > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 321§ 321. General authority of the Secretary
(d)
(1) The Secretary of the Treasury may accept, hold, administer, and use gifts and bequests of property, both real and personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the Department of the Treasury. Gifts and bequests of money and the proceeds from sales of other property received as gifts or bequests shall be deposited in the Treasury in a separate fund and shall be disbursed on order of the Secretary of the Treasury. Property accepted under this paragraph, and the proceeds thereof, shall be used as nearly as possible in accordance with the terms of the gift or bequest.
(2) For purposes of the Federal income, estate, and gift taxes, property accepted under paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States.
You may be focusing on the wrong word. “employment” is not the issue. Who congress can write law for, meaning who is the “person” referenced in the statute, is the issue. According to the following memorandum of law, THAT “person” can include only those who ALREADY lawfully occupy public offices:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and not Private Persons, Form #05.037
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…StatLawGovt.pdf
The term “employer” is a subset of “person”. The ability to regulate private conduct is repugnant to the constitution. Hence, the ability to FORCE you to become a “person” or to volunteer to become a “person” by alienating unalienable rights in violation of the purpose for the establishment of government is illegal, a breach of contract, and a breach of fiduciary duty by REAL public officers.
-
Franklin,
Yes, CIVIL statutory law runs with the soil, BUT contract or private law does not.
Quote:Debitum et contractus non sunt nullius loci. Debt and contract are of no particular place.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856
SOURCE: [url url=”http://famguardian.o…iersMaxims.htm”]http://famguardian.o…iersMaxims.htm[/url]]There are THREE phrases relating to jurisdiction, and EACH has a different meaning.
1. “Subject to THE jurisdiction”. Meaning political status not tied to specific territory. This phrase is used in the U.S. constitution within the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.
2. “Subject to ITS jurisdiction”. Meaning federal territory and excluding constitutional states of the Union. This phrase is used in Title 26.
3. “Subject to THEIR jurisdiction”. Meaning constitutional states of the Union and excluding federal territory. This phrase is used in the Thirteenth Amendment.Items 2 and 3 above imply statutory civil jurisdiction. Item 1 implies POLITICAL jurisdiction and NOT statutory civil jurisdiction.
Nationality doesn’t confer civil statutory jurisdiction. DOMICILE does. Hence, DOMICILE and not NATIONALITY runs with the soil and to a specific statutory status. The phrase “subject to THE jurisdiction” in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment refers to POLITICAL MEMBERSHIP, not DOMICILE. If it related to domicile, then it would read “subject to ITS jurisdiction” or “subject to THEIR jurisdiction”, where “ITS” means the federal zone or “THEIR” means the Constitutional states of the Union:
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.”
[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
An example is the following civil statute, which uses “subject to ITS jurisdiction”, meaning that it attaches to domicile instead of nationality and therefore attaches to SPECIFIC soil:
Quote:26 CFR §1.1-1 Income tax on individuals
(c ) Who is a citizen.
Every person born or naturalized in the [federal] United States[**] and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1401–1459). ”
Notice that the “United States” referred to above is that defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), which is the federal zone and nowhere expressly includes states of the Union. Hence, THAT “citizen of the United States” is a Statutory Citizen and NOT a Constitutional or state citizen. The same phrase, “citizen of the United States” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment has a completely different meaning, because THAT “United States”, in a Geographic sense, means the states of the Union and excludes federal territory. Same name, but the context is different and therefore the MEANING is completely different. Context is EVERYTHING.
NATIONALITY and DOMICILE are two completely different things. A national without a domicile on federal territory is NOT the statutory citizen described above. He is:
1. Subject to THE jurisdiction
2. NOT subject to ITS jurisdiction.
3. A “stateless person” in relation to federal jurisdiction.
4. A “nonresident” in relation to federal jurisdiction.
5. A “transient foreigner” in relation to federal jurisdiction.
6. A member of the political community formed by the Constitution.
7. Not a “subject”, “inhabitant”, or “person” under federal law.Once he changes his domicile to federal territory, he is subject to THE jurisdiction and subject to ITS jurisdiction, and therefore both a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen AND a STATUTORY citizen respectively and simultaneously.
-
juliusbragg,
Good questions. A good place to start for answers is the annotated Fourteenth Amendment:
http://www.law.corne…14toc_user.html
Some answers:
Q1. Did the 14th Amendment make the freed Negroes equal to the white man?
A1. YES. Based on the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, section 1 and the Thirteenth Amendment passed before it.
Q2. Did the 14th Amendment make the freed Negroes into a new class of citizen?
A2. No. Equality mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment made them equal to the white man.
Q3. If so, is this new class of citizen called a “citizen of the United States”?
A3. There is no new class of citizen. There is no difference between a “citizen” and a “Citizen” in the Constitution. The key word in the Constitution is “United States” in a geographic sense. When it is used in a geographic sense anywhere in the USA Constitution, it means ONLY states of the Union and excludes federal territory.
Quote:“The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the Constitution [meaning that FEDERAL statutory “States” are EXCLUDED], . . . and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.’ This case was followed in Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280, 18 L. ed. 825, and quite recently in Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 395 , 41 L. ed. 1049, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596. The same rule was applied to citizens of territories in New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91, 4 L. ed. 44, in which an attempt was made to distinguish a territory from the District of Columbia. But it was said that ‘neither of them is a state in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution.’ In Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343, 12 L. ed. 181, and in Miners’ Bank v. Iowa ex rel. District Prosecuting Attorney, 12 How. 1, 13 L. ed. 867, it was held that under the judiciary act, permitting writs of error to the supreme court of a state in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question, an act of a territorial legislature was not within the contemplation of Congress.”[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) ]
What the Fourteenth Amendment did was create a new CONTEXT for the word “Citizen”, and use this context to regulate the relationship between the Constitutional states and their citizens. Previously, the federal government had not way to regulate or interfere with this relationship.
Q4. If there are two classes of citizen, are they both equal in terms of rights?
A4. They are equal based on the equal protection mandated by Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. There are no two classes.
Q5. Is a person born in Swains Island and living in one of the 50 states a constitutional citizen?
A5. NO. He is a non-citizen national of the United States per 8 USC 1408 and 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(b) if he is DOMICILED there and not just LIVING there.
Q6. Is a person born in the District of Columbia and living in one of the 50 states a constitutional citizen?
A6. Yes. If he is DOMICILED in the 50 states outside of federal territory and not just LIVING there.
Q7. Is a person born in one of the 50 states and living in the District of Columbia a constitutional citizen?
A7. No. If he is DOMICILED there and not just LIVING there.
Q8. Can one be both a constitutional citizen and a statutory citizen at the same time?
A8. Yes. Those born in a state of the Union but domiciled on federal territory such as the District of Columbia are:
a. Constitutional “citizens”.
b. Statutory “nationals of the United States” under 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(:cool:.
c. Statutory citizens under 8 USC 1401.
d. Subject to ITS jurisdiction, meaning the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.
e. NOT subject to THEIR jurisdiction, meaning the jurisdiciton of the states of the Union.
If this same District of Columbia statutory “U.S. citizen” moves to a state of the Union, he loses the following statutory civil statuses by virtue of changing his/her domicile:
a. Constitutional “citizens”.
b. Statutory “national” under 8 USC 1101(a)(21).
c. NOT subject to ITS jurisdiction, meaning the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.
d. Subject to THEIR jurisdiction, meaning the jurisdiciton of the states of the Union.
Q9. Is there any significance to the capitalization of “Citizen” as found throughout the Constitution and “citizen” as found in the 14th?
A9. No. The key word is “United States”, which uniformly means, THROUGHOUT the constitution, the states of the Union, but only when used in a geographic sense.
Q10. Does the term “United States” as used in the 14th Amendment change meanings throughout the amendment? In other words does “United States” in Sec. 1 have the same meaning that it does in Sec. 4 of the 14th?
A10. YES it does. It is used in two contexts. Section 1 speaks of the GEOGRAPHIC sense when speaking of citizenship while section 4 speaks of the GOVERNMENT sense when speaking of obligations of a foreign corporation.
You fail to distinguish that there are TWO elements comprising the word “citizenship”: NATIONALITY and DOMICILE. These two termas are NOT interchangeable. Nationality is tied to political status while domicile is tied to specific soil and municipal civil law.
Quote:“Nationality. That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person’s belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization. See also Naturalization.”[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1025]
The constitution defines how NATIONALITY is determined. DOMICILE defines one’s municipal civil status and therefore whether one is a “citizen” under statutory the civil law. The two interact with each other but are NOT equivalent. The “citizen” mentioned in the fourteenth amendment is a “national” in a statutory sense. The “citizen” under statutory civil law is a person domiciled on the territory of the sovereign AND who is a “national”. These interations are described in:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent
http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm
Citizenship is a deliberately complex subject to give undue latitude to judges to kidnap your identity and move it to the district of criminals. Until you understand how domicle and nationality interact to define one’s STATUTORY status, you will continue to be confused. These interactions are not described in the “Why You are a ‘national'” pamphlet you have been reading so far.
The U.S. Supreme Court alluded to these distinctions, when they held, AFTER the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the following:
Quote:“The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States[***] and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States[***] without being a citizen of a state, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the state to make him a citizen of it but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States[***] to be a citizen of the Union.It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States[***], and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances of the individual.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]
The term “residence” as used above is synonymous with “domicile”. One’s choice of domicile dictates the “circumstances of the individual” that determine his civil statutory status.
Those domiciled on federal territory are Statutory but not Constitutional “citizens of the United States**”. When they change their domicile to a state of the union they convert to “citizens of the United States***”.
-
Neo,
Thanks for sharing that. What you said is completely consistent with:
Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…oDeclStatus.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The USA Passport Application, Form #06.007, simply reinforces and emphasizes everything you said to ensure that the applicant for a passport is not confused with any specific civil status that might impart jurisdiction to any federal court. It does this by defining the meaning of all words used to remove all discretion to interpret the meaning from DOS agency personnel or the judiciary.
Please post a sanitized PDF version of the letter from/to your Congressman and the DOS to demonstrate what they told you on this subject. It would be very helpful to the people in these forums. If you do not have th ability to sanitize the letters, you can email it to someone in the ministry for redaction and posting.
-
Author #2
Who ever the reader was who sent you that, here is our response:
________________________________You need to read the following and then reconcile what portion of it is incorrect when asking your question so that we START with the right context and with all the research that has already been done on the subject. That is what we were told you were told to do during the conversation with one of our members that gave rise to your question. We’re not going to entertain going over the same tired question and argument again without at least addressing why any or all of the research done on the subject so far is inaccurate.
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdfAs section 2 of the above document and the link that you reference reveals, there are three distinct meanings of the term “United States” recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. This reduces to two main contexts for the Use of the term:
1. Statutory Context: Meaning the GOVERNMENT and NOT a geographic place.
2. Constitutional Context: Meaning the states of the Union and excluding the government, when used in a geographic sense.The Supreme Court held the following AFTER the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment:
Quote:“The earliest case is that of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 2 L. ed. 332, in which this court held that, under that clause of the Constitution limiting the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to controversies between citizens of different states, a citizen of the District of Columbia could not maintain an action in the circuit court of the United States. It was argued that the word ‘state.’ in that connection, was used simply to denote a distinct political society. ‘But,’ said the Chief Justice, ‘as the act of Congress obviously used the word ‘state’ in reference to that term as used in the Constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the Constitution [meaning that FEDERAL statutory “States” are EXCLUDED], . . . and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.’ This case was followed in Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280, 18 L. ed. 825, and quite recently in Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 395 , 41 L. ed. 1049, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596. The same rule was applied to citizens of territories in New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91, 4 L. ed. 44, in which an attempt was made to distinguish a territory from the District of Columbia. But it was said that ‘neither of them is a state in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution.’ In Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343, 12 L. ed. 181, and in Miners’ Bank v. Iowa ex rel. District Prosecuting Attorney, 12 How. 1, 13 L. ed. 867, it was held that under the judiciary act, permitting writs of error to the supreme court of a state in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question, an act of a territorial legislature was not within the contemplation of Congress.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) ]The Supreme Court further clarified that the Constitution implies the third definition above, which is the United States*** when they held the following. Notice that they say “not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution” and that the word “the” implies only ONE rather than multiple meanings:
Quote:“As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.”
[O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933)]And finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has also held that the Constitution does not and cannot determine or limit the authority of Congress over federal territory and that the ONLY portion of the Constitution that does in fact expressly refer to federal territory and therefore the statutory “United States” is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. Notice they ruled that Puerto Rico is NOT part of the “United States” within the meaning of the Constitution, just like they ruled in O’Donoghue above that territory was no part of the “United States”:
Quote:In passing upon the questions involved in this and kindred cases, we ought not to overlook the fact that, while the Constitution was intended to establish a permanent form of government for the states which should elect to take advantage of its conditions, and continue for an indefinite future, the vast possibilities of that future could never have entered the minds of its framers. The states had but recently emerged from a war with one of the most powerful nations of Europe, were disheartened by the failure of the confederacy, and were doubtful as to the feasibility of a stronger union. Their territory was confined to a narrow strip of land on the Atlantic coast from Canada to Florida, with a somewhat indefinite claim to territory beyond the Alleghenies, where their sovereignty was disputed by tribes of hostile Indians supported, as was popularly believed, by the British, who had never formally delivered possession [182 U.S. 244, 285] under the treaty of peace. The vast territory beyond the Mississippi, which formerly had been claimed by France, since 1762 had belonged to Spain, still a powerful nation and the owner of a great part of the Western Hemisphere. Under these circumstances it is little wonder that the question of annexing these territories was not made a subject of debate. The difficulties of bringing about a union of the states were so great, the objections to it seemed so formidable, that the whole thought of the convention centered upon surmounting these obstacles. The question of territories was dismissed with a single clause, apparently applicable only to the territories then existing, giving Congress the power to govern and dispose of them.
Had the acquisition of other territories been contemplated as a possibility, could it have been foreseen that, within little more than one hundred years, we were destined to acquire, not only the whole vast region between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, but the Russian possessions in America and distant islands in the Pacific, it is incredible that no provision should have been made for them, and the question whether the Constitution should or should not extend to them have been definitely settled. If it be once conceded that we are at liberty to acquire foreign territory, a presumption arises that our power with respect to such territories is the same power which other nations have been accustomed to exercise with respect to territories acquired by them. If, in limiting the power which Congress was to exercise within the United States[***], it was also intended to limit it with regard to such territories as the people of the United States[***] should thereafter acquire, such limitations should have been expressed. Instead of that, we find the Constitution speaking only to states, except in the territorial clause, which is absolute in its terms, and suggestive of no limitations upon the power of Congress in dealing with them. The states could only delegate to Congress such powers as they themselves possessed, and as they had no power to acquire new territory they had none to delegate in that connection. The logical inference from this is that if Congress had power to acquire new territory, which is conceded, that power was not hampered by the constitutional provisions. If, upon the other hand, we assume [182 U.S. 244, 286] that the territorial clause of the Constitution was not intended to be restricted to such territory as the United States then possessed, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that the power of Congress in dealing with them was intended to be restricted by any of the other provisions.
[. . .]
If those possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible; and the question at once arises whether large concessions ought not to be made for a time, that ultimately our own theories may be carried out, and the blessings of a free government under the Constitution extended to them. We decline to hold that there is anything in the Constitution to forbid such action.
We are therefore of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States[***] within the revenue clauses of the Constitution; that the Foraker act is constitutional, so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island, and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case.
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]Therefore:
1. When “United States” is used in a GEOGRAPHIC sense within the constitution, it includes ONLY states of the Union and excludes either federal territory or federal statutory “States”.
2. In cases where “United States” is used in a non-GEOGRAPHIC sense, it means the GOVERNMENT of the Union, which is separate and distinct from the states that created it.Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment which you reference refers to the GOVERNMENT sense and not the geographic sense, because it relates to liabilities and obligations of distinct and FOREIGN corporations:
1. The “United States” federal corporation;
2. The states of the Union.Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no definition of how one became a “Citizen” within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the criteria had to be judicially created, leading to a long train of caselaw referencing a “citizen of the United States”.
“The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States, were not citizens.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]
The judiciary created the status by fiat and all the Fourteenth Amendment did was recognize that which had already been judicially created and recognized. It DID NOT create a new citizenship status.
In fact, there are TWO types of “citizens of the United States” because there are TWO main contexts in which the term “United States” is used, as described above.
1. When the GOVERNMENT/Statutory sense of “United States” is used within the term “citizen of the United States**”, it refers to a public officer within the government representing the federal corporation. In law, all corporations are citizens of the place of their incorporation. Hence, those acting as public officers and franchisees of the national government implicitly also are clothed with the status of a statutory and not constitutional “citizen” domiciled on federal territory. This is the type of citizen who is NOT a citizen of a state as referenced in the links you provided. This type of citizen is not tied to a specific place but to a FRANCHISE STATUS, and it includes those within federal territories. This is explained in section 3 of the above document.
2. When the GEOGRAPHIC/Constitutional sense of “United States” is used within the term “citizen of the United States***”, it refers to people domiciled in constitutional states of the Union and excludes federal territory.
-
Because of the character of the man and unscrupulous character of bankers and politicians, we have good reason to believe Jerry Kane's death, and his son's death was police execution. We will never get the truth from the media or the police. You can always count on the media to slander and make presumptions first and for the public to believe the police are always right. Kane's wife has some interesting observations.
This is from Jerry Kane`s wife
Information and details from Jerry Kane's Wife;
1. On Thursday, May 20, 2010, the day of the shooting, a little after noon I received a call from someone who had received a call from someone who had received a call from someone else, stating that Jerry Kane had been involved in a shooting and they had heard about it on national news. I was stunned. I searched the internet, there was nothing about a Jerry Kane name or a Joseph Kane name in the news, that whole day. It wasn't until Friday or Saturday when they were identified and their names were finally released to the media. When the Effa Bee eye came to my door on Friday morning, they were extremely interested in who had tipped me off. I told them that that information
would go with me to my grave. I am very grateful to the man or woman who let us know.
2. We still don't have the police dash cam videos. Interesting to note that they had Josephs 16 year old bullet ridden bloody handcuffed corpse photo immediately up for all to see on the news. In the video (Point 😎 at 20 seconds you can see Joseph (you can see his blue shirt in the back of the van) helping his dog Olie get out of the window in the back of the van (Olie is the dog that lived although he'd been shot 4 times, exited the van, ran into Walmart and ran into the food section) as soon as Joseph had helped Olie out of the van, Joseph immediately went back up to the front of the van (I'm sure he did this to check on his dad) and the cops finished Joseph off. You can see the passenger window glass where Joseph was sitting bursting in a spray from a high powered rifle. Jerry and Joseph died, Jerry had his arm on Joseph's shoulder.
3. The media initially reported that Jerry and Joseph were Hispanic drug runners. That was shown to be blatantly false. Then the media reported Jerry and Joseph were White Supremicists. That was proven to be blatantly untrue. (They didn't see color). Then the media reported that Jerry and Joe were anti-government. That has been shown to be blatantly untrue as Jerry spoke extensively on bringing back the organic Government, where people were the power, where people had rights, not benefits and privileges. Not subject to victimless crimes. Freedom. The point is, with all the lies they've already told, what else have they lied about? How can anybody intelligent believe anything that churns out of that disinfo mill?
4. The only video evidence we have is the video of the police killing Jerry and Joseph. Not of Jerry and Joseph doing any killing. Perhaps some should get a refresher of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Pearl Harbor, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Tuskogee experiment, Operation Northwoods, Operation Homerun, amongst hundreds of other government experiments, ambushes, cover ups, etc. before commenting on obvious one sided evidence. That does make me very suspicious.
5. Can you imagine shooting 2 people then 90 minutes later the alleged killers are still within 8 miles and not already be in another state with that amount of time gone by? I've never heard of killers say Hey, let's go to walmart and shop, hang out…
6. The implications of this, combined with the length of time that goes by with no video is more time to photoshop/alter it (there are certainly enough videos on youtube.com, google.com and privateaudio.homestead.com of Jerry and Joseph to work from (a family member of mine was one of the top 3 in the world for Photoshop, says it's extremely easy to fake, alter, add people, delete people, add props, delete props in videos), also more
time to plant evidence, more time for the media to keep spinning their unbelievable lies. I wouldn't be too surprised if the video comes up missing, camera not turned on, etc. If a video does surface it will be professionally analyzed by several people, including my family member who is an undisputed expert in these matters.
7. If I am found dead, I don't care how convincing any evidence would be that would make it look like it was a suicide, I would never do that, and I don't have 'accidents'. I have to continue Jerry and Joseph's work and clear their
good names. I believe this was an ambush, Ruby Ridge material. I will die in my sleep as an old woman, unless our wonderful government comes to my door and says “We're here to help you”!
All have my permission to repost this verbatim, in fact I encourage it. Thank you for reading.
-
SOURCE: One of our readers
_______________
A personal testimony about Jerry Kane:
I had the honor to have cooked dinner for Jerry and Joe Kane at my place in several occasions. And I did it as if I were doing it for a King and a Prince. They helped me save my rental housing unit from an Unlawful Detainer and from losing my newspaper business from a crook lawyer on a collection agency's' lawsuit.
The same occurred to other Latinos who had the pleasure of meeting Jerry and Joe who also shared a dinner or lunch with them, and who were in great need of legal remedy. The two were inseparable.
Young attendants who came with their parents to some of Jerry's seminars in SF were delighted to see Joe, a young man of about their same age, talk so eloquently about the law and history.
He inspired this one young man, the son of a SF Police Officer, a couple of years ago. The youth, I was told by his father (who attended Jerry's seminar in several occasions), has been studying the law since then.
When Jerry was in the Bay Area, he lived on several occasions with latino families.
So fond was Joe of our culture, that he was learning Spanish. He spoke with me on several occasions and I corrected his pronunciation and taught him a few new words. I also taught Joe a couple times guitar notes… He seemed interested and was enjoying it. I regret I not giving him a guitar a was thinking of providing him with at the time.
I met Jerry and Joe in 2007. He was a great man, a real human being who loved people and did everything he could to help others without interest for money.
“Give me for the gas and food and I will go there,” he said when my friend Adilia was about to lose her beautiful house in Lake Tahoe. And the same was at other occasions.
What the corporate news media is doing now, by interviewing the enemies of the Freedom Movement in the United States and publishing conflicting and inaccurate information about Jerry Kane – which associate him with the evilness of racism – is with the intention of tainting a whole movement that is awakening from the tyranny of the elite bankers. What they are saying are pure lies.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly gives every American the license to own and carry a gun. And if Jerry owned one was because he feared for his life.
And I have a feeling something extraordinary might have happened in that West Memphis highway on that day, in Arkansas, that caused the tragedy that killed the two police officers and Jerry and Joem and one of their two dogs.
Jerry, a legal seminarist, taught skills in how the people could defend themselves. He never advocated violence. His legal power was much powerful than firepower. But he felt the government wanted to silence him for uncovering the truth about mortgage fraud, information that is now filling up the court houses around the country by the people, and finding out that there is a legal remedy to their debts. And the goal of Jerry was that: teach
As many as he could the tools for finding and executing their remedy.
In the name of all Latinos who benefited from the teaching and friendship of Jerry, may Jerry and Joe's souls rest in peace in the Kingdom of God.
Let's all send money donations to Donna Lee Kane to help her afford the expenses of transporting their bodies to Florida and to provide a Christian burial to our two brothers now physically dead.
Funds are now needed. Please send your contributions to:
Donna Lee c/o 501 N Madison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755
Or Paypal to
Marvin,
A Latino journalist in San Francisco
-
deformed fungus
The mac is only 4% of the computer market. We don't have a mac and we aren't about to buy one and test that one specialized app to support such a small market share. Even if we could identify the cause of the problem, there is no way we would produce TWO versions of each of the thousands of PDFs on this website to accommodate your special requirement.
Please download the latest free adobe reader. You may also consider updating the application you are using. It is probably an older application. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. The world does not revolve around MACs or third party viewers that always have compatibility problems.
Sorry
-
Fixed. Thanks.
Please keep your suggestions for improvement coming.
-
Gutsy speech by a real American politician to the Mexican President Calderon on the House floor after Claderon criticized Arizona for its adoption of American law to deter illegal immigration in its state.
http://www.youtube.c…h?v=Ldx8gZDwZWs
Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
[Theodore Roosevelt 1907]
-
Franklin,
Fantastic insight. Can you add the name of the social worker, the year, and the town, so we can investigate the contextual information and strengthen your excellent argument?
-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Late May Rant 2010Roger MasonMay 23, 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 29 that should the federal government ever turn despotic it “can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms.” If every American family was armed and trained for one week a year, that would be enough to give any army pause. Every Swiss family is armed with military weapons, and must train every year at a military camp. You notice they have never once ever been invaded. Hitler made the mistake of invading a huge powerful country like Russia, but didn't even consider Switzerland. Owning guns is about protecting yourself from the tyranny of government far more than it is for self defense and protection against invasion. Obama and his crew are doing their best to take your guns away using the United Nations. Yes, they are bypassing Congress completely. There will be a blood civil war in this country when they try to take them however.
This is a chart of the XAU going back 50 years. You see precious metals stocks are not doing well. They are extremely undervalued, especially considering the current high prices for gold and silver. Sometimes the stocks lead the metals, and sometimes the metals lead the stocks. Right now the metals are leading, and the XAU to silver, and HUI to silver, ratios are very bad. When they improve we are going to sell all our silver stocks and go 100% silver bullion. Why? Because Mexico is a basket case run by the drug cartels, and most all our stocks are in Mexico. Secondly, because our New Marxist Government punishes people who work, save, and invest, so they can give your hard earned money to those who don't do anything but collect welfare. You are going to be taxed to death on any paper investments.
[img]http://www.youngagain.org/images/goldcore.PNG[/img]
The Times Square bomb was a transparent hoax. A little kid can see that much. You don't make real bombs with propane tanks and fireworks for God's sakes. You don't put bombs in SUVs with eight big windows so “vendors” can discover them. This is just another hoax like the other domestic terrorist hoaxes- Jihad Jane, the Hutarees, the Christian militia groups, etc. etc. The point is to get the great unwashed masses to believe we have a domestic terrorist threat. Then the sheeple will gladly agree to National ID cards, no Constitution or Bill of Rights, martial law, a police state, and anything else to take what's left of their freedoms away. Just say the words “SAFE” and “SAFETY” and the American public will give up anything and everything in order to be “safe”. Safety is now a religion based on fantasy.
You are going to see more and more engineered phony “crises” like this.
9/11 was an inside job and another huge inside job is overdue. This one will be much worse than 9/11. For those of you who still cannot see that Arabs didn't do 9/11, please Google “9/11 hoax, 9/11 fraud, 9/11 inside job”, and you will see endless facts that will simply overwhelm you. Rahm Emmanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Then Hillary followed with, “Never waste a good crisis.” All these fake crises are engineered to further the police state, martial law, and the One World Order. The BP oil rig was sabotage folks, not an accident. Ray Charles can see that much. Two weeks after Obama surprisingly tells us he is all for offshore drilling (after voting against it his entire career), we suddenly have an oil disaster. Now, no more offshore drilling.
[img]http://www.youngagain.org/images/usatombstone.PNG[/img]
The American people killed America after 234 years of freedom and prosperity. The great unwashed masses elected Carter, Clinton, Bush and now Obama.
Greece is a portent folks. Iceland was a portent, too. Yes, they only have one fortieth of the economy we do, but this is a glimpse into our future. We are already bankrupt, but the reality hasn't come crashing down yet. There will be violent riots in the streets. Google “Gerald Celente” to learn more about our future. He has lots of very good, free videos.
For those of you who take food supplements McCain, Schumer, Dorgan, and Waxman have been paid by the pharmaceutical corporations to ban all OTC supplements and hormones. Waxman (D-CA) just tried to add an amendment to HR 4173 the Wall Street Reform Act. Vitamins and Wall Street? Yes, this would give the FTC (not the FDA) unlimited power to ban all supplements. Under socialism ALL freedoms are taken, even vitamin supplements.
Let's repeat that America has 5% of the world population and 25% of the world's prisoners. America is the real police state, not Russia or China. Plus the countless millions on parole and probation. One in 100 Americans is behind bars, and many more under court control. The percent of young black men locked up, on parole and probation is almost uncountable. Almost two million people a year are arrested on non-violent drug charges. Almost a million of these are simply for marijuana. Almost half of Americans would legalize marijuana today. Three quarters would like to see medical marijuana. California may just do that, and the federal authorities be damned. If California would regulate and tax the growing and sales of marijuana they could literally get out of bankruptcy. The sentences are draconian, and it is common to see people get 60 years on a drug charge and die in jail. All the billions and billions of dollars that go to gangs, cartels, and drug dealers every year would instead flow into government taxes and into the legitimate economy. Until 1913 every drug in America was legal, including heroin, cocaine, and opium. For 137 years we did just fine with no drug laws at all and only 3% of Americans in 1913 had a drug problem. These people were medical cases and not criminals. They did not rob, kill, and steal to get drug money. They went down to the drug store and bought them for (literally) pennies. Mexico has now collapsed, and the drug cartels run the country. The Mexican drug cartels now operate heavily right inside our country as well. This is one big reason we are going to sell all our silver stocks when the HUI improves to about 30 to 1 (it is now 24 to 1). The other reason is that all investors and investments are punished in a Marxist police state like ours. The productive are punished, and the unproductive rewarded.
Your investments will be taxed to death. This just destroys the economy of course.
We are going to 100% silver bullion in your own hands when the HUI to silver ratio goes to 30 to 1 or better. It is a bad idea to sell your stocks at these low prices. Silver and gold stocks are the most undervalued of all assets and more undervalued than bullion.
[img]http://www.youngagain.org/images/shrinkingdollar.PNG[/img]
Look at this chart. The dollar is only worth FIVE CENTS now.
Twenty different states have already joined together in a federal class action lawsuit to refuse ObamaCare. Find someone in your state and see if this is one of them. If not, help your state join this suit. If the majority of states refuse socialized medicine then it cannot be implemented. Far left states like California and Massachusetts will not join this, but the vast majorities can reuse government health care, and it cannot be implemented. Even if the federal courts rule against them, the states can simply refuse to accept ObamaCare. The feds cannot find and arrest everyone in that state, much less 30 or 40 states. You do not have to put up with nationalized medical care. You will get back 10 cents worth of “care” for every dollar you give the government. All government programs are failures- you know, like the post office or DMV office.
House Bill HR2487 will institute capital controls on Americans. This means you cannot take your money out of the country. The ironic thing is this does not cover gold. Silver is too heavy of course. Gold is exempt. You can literally take a quarter million dollars in gold legally out of the country and not even claim it or report it. You DO want to report it anyway and offer them a signed Form 4790. The customs agents generally refuse to sign your Form 4790 as they say gold is not a monetary instrument. Isn't that a laugh? If gold isn't money, what is? 25 pounds of gold (300 troy ounces, not regular ounces) is worth over $350,000. You do NOT have to report this being stored in a foreign country, but you do have to report any kind of bank account. No one will ever know if you sold it or what you sold it for. Capital controls are always a hallmark of a police or totalitarian state. It's your money, you earned it, and you paid taxes on it. You should be able to do anything you want with it, including leaving the country with it. If you want to take gold to another country it is best to do it before HR2487 passes. Gold will be exempt, but get ahead of the game.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HYPERINFLATION IS YOUR FUTURE
Did that get your attention? Please go tohttp://www.inflation.us and watch their new video Meltup. They worked hard on this. It is 54 minutes long and well worth watching. This is one of the few good websites out there, and they don't want your money. Sign up for their regular updates and free videos. They understand that silver is the best investment in the world. They know that hyperinflation is the future and will destroy this country. Buy silver and you'll party like a rock star while all your dumb assed friends starve in the streets. Have you noticed whenever you tell your friends and relatives to buy silver, they look at your like you're stupid? Tell them that only silver and gold are real money and you might as well be speaking Chinese. They really believe that green toilet paper in their wallet is “real money”. They believe in the stocks market. They believe in banks. Well, almost 70 banks have gone under just in the first four months of this year. Many, many more are bankrupt but just haven't admitted it yet. Do not keep money in the bank except for a small checking account to pay your bills. Do not keep an unsafe deposit box. We will get a “bank holiday” just like we did 81 years ago. Just like Iceland got last year. You will wake up one morning and the banks will be closed, your credit cards will be useless, your ATM card won't work, and checks can't be used. You'll need some Monopoly Money in the house along with your silver. The stores will take Monopoly Money and you can always sell small amounts of silver six days a week at any coin shop if you need cash for purchases. The stock market is held up by bubble gum and delusions. Richard Russell (Dow Theory Letters) has never been an alarmist in his many decades as an investment advisor. He sent out a special warning that the stock market will collapse this year. That 1,000 point drop was a warning. The idea one investor and one order mistake can take down the entire stock market is prima facie ridiculous.
California is 15% or one seventh of the American GNP, and they are hopelessly bankrupt. Folks, if every worker in America was taxed 100% of their earnings we still couldn't even begin to pay our bills. That's how broke we are. We have a national debt of 80 trillion dollars. The total Gross National Product of America is only 14 trillion. This is more than 600% of the GDP. All bills get paid. There is no such thing as an “unpaid bill”. Either the buyer or the seller pays the bill. YOU WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT. You will pay the bill for this collapse. We've been bankrupt for decades, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost. One half of Americans have less than $10,000 to retire on. How in heck are you going to retire on less than $10,000? 40 million Americans can't eat without government help and are on food stamps. That is almost 1 in 7 people who are too lazy or too stupid to work and have to get food from the government. Social Insecurity has been broke for decades. We have been robbing Peter to pay Paul, but Peter is broke. The lemmings will still get their Social Insecurity checks, but they will buy less and less every month. As hyperinflation takes over, the checks will not even begin to keep up with it. People will get checks that will buy less and less every month until they finally riot in the streets. You are going to see massive and very violent riots in the streets especially with blacks and Latinos and white trash who depend on welfare to live. Remember we had 27% farmers during the last depression. Farmers ate. Farmers traded food for whatever they needed. Now we have only 2% farmers. Farming is only 1% of our GNP. This means we import massive amounts of food, rather than export food like we used to do. Probably the best answer to the coming depression is to own a small farm, but that isn't realistic at all. How many people do you know that could farm for a living? None? That's how many I know. There will be communist-style price controls on food, which just makes the situation worse. That means there will be no food under price controls. If you tell a farmer beef is only $2 a pound when it should be $5 he'll stop raising beef. Then on one will have beef. You cannot “control” a price!!! Supply and demand are the only way to determine prices in a free market. There is no other way.
Let's talk about silver. Ft. Knox is empty and has been empty for decades. The last audit was in 1954 almost 60 years ago. A real audit is required by federal law every 10 years, but if that was done then everyone would know we have no gold. Well, the COMEX probably has no silver. It is self-auditing, which is the same as no auditing at all. If the COMEX is empty then silver will go to Mars overnight and then go to Pluto the next day. Remember that $50 silver in 1980 would be $140 silver today adjusted for inflation. If silver was $140 right now it would be a non-event. There was an endless supply of silver in 1980 and the government had huge stockpiles. Everyone had access to silver. Now we are almost completely out of silver, and mining can't even begin to keep up with demand.The world only mines 40 million ounces of silver each year. 80% of this is by-product mining. There are a handful of real silver mines. This is a very, very tiny market. The COMEX is the largest repository in the world, but only has about 120 million ounces. SUPPOSEDLY. They might really only have a fraction of that. The big banks, especially JP Morgan, are short 350 million ounces of silver futures. This is 65,000 contracts. That may not sound like much but it is almost nine times the amount of silver mined every year. This is price manipulation plain and simple, and has been for years now. This is what keeps the price down. Since only 40 million ounces are even mined each year, so obviously this is nothing but a huge fraud. All manipulations end in disaster, and this one is already ending. It should all be over by Christmas and the price of silver will finally take off. They lose billions of dollars as the price goes up. The price of silver will skyrocket when they finally fold.
We are going to sell our silver stocks as soon as the HUI to silver ratio improves. Stocks are very undervalued and a bad time to sell them. We are going 100% bullion held by you personally. No paper silver ever like SLV and such. Why are we selling our stocks? To repeat, 1) with our new Marxist government all investors are heavily penalized, and 2) Mexico is out of control and run by drug cartels. Most all our mines were in Mexico. We are going 100% bullion as soon at the HUI starts going up than the silver price. The stocks lead, then the metal lead, and then the stocks lead…. It's a cycle.
We spend half the entire world military budget. That's right- half. All for nothing. We are now the World Bully instead of Russia. We have over 700 military bases in 140 different countries. We should have no military bases in any other country. 100% of our military should be right here on American soil for self defense. We have replaced Russia as the World Bully and spend literally half of the world military dollars. That's' right we spend half of all the worldwide military spending when we are only 5% of the world population. That is ten times, or 1,000%, more than we should be spending. It will stop ONLY because we've run out of money. The entire “War on Terrorism” is a hoax, a fraud, a scam. Did you know that when Medicare was started the budget was only 3 billion a year? Do you know what it is now? IT IS $408 BILLION A YEAR!!!! That is 136 times or 13,600 % more than what was promised. Since ObamaCare will admittedly cost 1 trillion a year how could we possible pay $14 trillion when that is the entire GNP?
Like all Marxist and socialist countries we have far too many unproductive government workers. More are being hired all the time!!! Can you believe that? The worse the economy gets the more government workers we hire. Did you know that the average government worker now make about $72,000 a year, or TWICE that of people in he private sector? Did you know Obama called free enterprise “the enemy” in his book? Yes, he says that the free market is “the enemy.” Freedom and free trade and supply and demand are The Enemy. He wants the government to literally run EVERYTHING. Not most things, but everything. He wants no private free markets at all. He's doing a very good job of achieving that, if you haven't noticed. Buy all the guns and ammunition you can. The Obama crowd knows they cannot pass a bill banning guns in America. There are just too many gun owners. They are going to sign a United Nations treaty to disarm Americans. The United States is the only civilized country that still allows gun ownership (NZ has limited gun rights). Hillary, Schumer and the rest of the One Worlders are going to sign a U.N. treaty that will ban firearms and bypass Congress. Yes, they are going to bypass Congress to do this. The problem is taking those guns away from tens of millions of gun owners. That's when you're going to see blood in the streets. The government took all the guns from the Australians without a whimper. That isn't going to happen here. Do not join the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment Foundation. Join the Gun Owners of America (GOA). The GOA is the only real gun owners organization. The NRA
Sold out years ago and was taken over by the liberals and watered down. In the next issue we'll go into more depth about the United Nations treaty and how that will be used to disarm Americans. We are the only civilized country to allow firearms ownership and this is embedded in our Second Amendment. Don't give up your guns.
Here is a chart of the stock market crash of 1929. That was a deflationary depression, while the current Much Greater Depression is a hyperinflationary depression. There will be many parallels and many lessons to learn from what happened 81 years ago. The initial collapse kicked off in late 1929. It was very sharp and sudden. Then we had a 60% recovery over more than six months. This gave people false hope that things were getting better. Then the REAL crash started, and went on for more than two years until the middle of 1932. It took about 25 years, or one quarter of a century, for the market to recover. THIS MARKET WILL NOT RECOVER. The United States will never recover, never rebound, never even again be what it used to be. America will be a Third World banana republic with no bananas. Just like the collapse of Britain and Argentina we are collapsing as you read this. There is a lot of talk about leaving the country for a safe haven like Costa Rica, Argentina, Uruguay, New Zealand, or Australia. There is nowhere to go folks. Central and South American countries are all pitiful cesspools of poverty. New Zealand and Australia are both socialist heavens. We now live on one big Prison Planet with no freedom anywhere.
[img]http://www.youngagain.org/images/bankingcrisischart.PNG[/img]
The Late May Rant was sent out on the 23rd due to technical issues. The June Rant will be sent out on June 1. Buy all the silver you can and keep it in your own home.
-
Dear newyorka104
Please update your Acrobat reader to the very latest free reader by downloading and installing off the adobe website:
You are probably using an older acrobat reader. If that doesn't work, please inform us by posting a response in this topic. Please also inform us if it does fix the problem.
-
Neo,
You are correct and thanks for pointing that deficiency out. We just fixed it.
That form has been posted for many years and it is difficult to keep the huge amount of information on this site updated and consistent with itself as it improves.