[fg_admin]

Snooper 45,

Information about correcting all variants of 1099s is at:

Correcting Erroneous IRS Form 1099's, Form #04.005

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/CorrErrInfoRtns/Form1099/CorrectingIRSForm1099.htm

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

In particular, see the 1099CC form provided on that page.

[fg_admin]

Our official attitude towards such PROPAGANDA is documented in:

Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments Against This Website, Form #08.011, Section 5.1
http://sedm.org/Form…rgAgWebsite.pdf

There is a link to the above document on the opening page of this website.

Saying that one is a “sovereign” and a “citizen” at the same time is an oxymoron. What the government regards as a “citizen” is, in fact, a public officer or worker within the government who offers their money and their labor to the government for NOTHING. That doesn’t sound like someone who is “sovereign” in any sense of the word, but more like whore. For a summary of this phenomenon, see:

Ministry Introduction, Form #12.014
http://sedm.org/Mini…nistryIntro.pdf

We consistently tell people they should learn all law, and lawfully retain as much of their sovereignty as they can by not filling out any government forms and terminating participation in all franchises. Whatever law remains that they must obey after franchises are dispensed with is what they have a duty to obey, which is mostly the criminal law.

[fg_admin]

Gentlemen,

Thank you both for your comments. The discussions in these forums on this subject, we are told, have been memorialized in new sections 8.3 and 8.4 of the following document:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

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

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

Keep your comments and feedback coming, gents.

Iron is definitely sharpening iron here.

[fg_admin]

Here is one of the links pointed to on this fellows' website that you may wish to examine. It is the legal history of the USA:

http://www.the7thfir…gal-History.htm

___________

U.S. Legal History

U.S. Law is Private Merchant Law, leaving the people as Surety and Debtor on the bankruptcy.

Law is contract, universally and in the U.S., so we must follow the progression of contractual agreements which constitute the underlying U.S. Law. (We cannot address all individual laws and cases or you would not have time in a life to review it, even though ignorance of the millions of laws, statutes, codes, etc. is no excuse in Private Admiralty Jurisdictions.)

In basically chronological order, the following progression of contracts, and our interpretation of them follows:

• The USA, a corporation of the English Crown, is bankrupt, and has been since at least 1788. The Articles of Confederation states in Article 12: “All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed as considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.” The “Founding Fathers,” as constitutors, acknowledged and reorganized the debt in the US Constitution 1787, Article VI, hence “constitution.” Bankruptcy occurred on January 1, 1788 based on 21 loans that the United States of America received from the King of England dating from February 28, 1778 through July 5, 1782, the repayment of which had been ratified by Congress on January 22, 1783. The United States Bank, created in 1791, was a private bank, with 18,000 of 25,000 shares owned by England.[*]No de jure, constitutional Congress has existed since March 27, 1861 when seven (7) Southern States walked out of Congress leaving Congress without a quorum for adjourning and therefore ending sine die. That which is called “Congress” today assembles and acts under the authority of the President acting in capacity of being Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, under emergency war-powers rule, i.e. “law of necessity,” i.e. no law (see 12 Stat 319, which has never been repealed and exists in Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213, 215, Appendix 16, 26 CFR Chapter 1 § 303.1-6(a), and 31 CFR Chapter 5 § 500.701 Penalties).[*]Since the above-referenced date, March 27, 1861, Americans have been under Fascist rule via presidential executive order under the aforementioned Emergency War Powers, 12 USC 95 a, b. Every “citizen of the United States” is now “legally” established as an “enemy” via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, amending Trading With Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91.[*]December 6th, 1865, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed as ratified (even though it never properly was, see below). The 14th Amendment, which is private Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Trust Law, constitutes a constructive, cestui que trust, a public charitable trust, “PCT,” that was expressly designed to bring every corporate franchise artificial person called a “citizen of the United States” into an inseparable merging with the government until the two are united (with the power inhering in the government, not the people). A cestui que trust is fundamentally different from a regular trust, which is express in nature and consists of a contractual indenture involving three (3) parties: Grantor (Creator or Trustor), Trustee, and Beneficiaries. In an express trust, legal ownership is transferred by written contract between Grantor and Trustee in which the Grantor surrenders ownership of property to the legal person, the Trust, to be managed by the Trustee on behalf of those who are to benefit from the arrangement, the Beneficiaries. A cestui que trust, on the other hand, differs from an express trust in several crucial ways:

a. It is not formed by express contract, i.e. overt agreement expressed in writing, but by legal construction, i.e. fiat.

b. A cestui que trust has no Grantor, but, being a constructive trust created by operation of law, i.e. by make-believe, has only co-trustees and co-beneficiaries. The co-trustees are the parties with the duties for managing property for the “public good,” i.e. for the benefit of those designated as co-beneficiaries.

• The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, chartered a Federal company entitled “United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington, D.C.,” in accordance with the so-called 14th Amendment, which the record indicates was never ratified (see Utah Supreme Court Cases, Dyett v Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v Phillips, (1975) 540 P 2d 936; as well as Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972; 28 Tulane Law Review, 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484; Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646). A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.[*]In conformity with the above-referenced creation of United States (1871) and the 14th Amendment, the Legislature of each State created a limited-liability corporation, chartered in a private, military, international, commercial, admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, entitled “STATE OF.” e.g. “STATE OF CALIFORNIA,” as evidenced by, inter alia, the change in the seal and the creation of a new constitution, e.g. Constitution of the State of California (1879), concerning which, re California:

a. A general partnership agreement, hereinafter “General Partnership,” exists between the California Republic (1849), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA (1879), with STATE OF CALIFORNIA acting as governmental controller.

b. STATE OF CALIFORNIA now acts as an agent/instrumentality of United States, collecting whole life insurance premiums, known as “taxes,” for the International Monetary Fund, based, inter alia, upon the Limited Liability Act of 1851 and the bankruptcy of United States of 1933, see House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933; Public Law 73-10; Perry v. U.S. (1935), 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 L Ed 912; 31 USC 5112, 5119.

• Inasmuch as all law is contract, the contract involved in a constructive trust is an implied contract. An implied contract can be ratified by two (2) means:

a. Acquiescence by silence, i.e. the “government” asserts its intentions concerning your life, rights, and property and you assent, don't rebut, and compliantly go along with what they claim. In 1871 the Government changed the nature of its contract with the people from law as defined by the original Constitution of 1787 that recognizes law (common law), admiralty (on the sea only), and equity (functioning by voluntary contract between all participating parties), and began relating to people as if they were “citizens of the Unites States” within/under the private, commercial, international, military jurisdiction of the new de facto corporation, i.e. US Inc. They offered people a “new deal,” and almost everyone bought it (based on naïve and foolish trust and assuming that everything was OK).

The people were thereby denied access to law and placed on the ship of state of US Inc. where the captain's word is law and no one has any rights. As Jefferson phrased the matter, “As government grows, liberty recedes.”

b. You expressly accept “benefits” offered by the government, and thereby finalize the contract by deed. This is similar to finalizing a contract with a restaurant by sitting down at a table, reading a menu, and then ordering and consuming a meal. By your deeds you affirm to the restaurant that you will pay for the meal in accordance with the price stated on the menu. No written contract is signed, but a contract is formed nevertheless.

• By the above two (2) means people give implied assent that they are bound by an alleged contract with US Inc. in accordance with the terms and conditions that inhere in being treated as a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment, and are therefore placed into permanent legal status as a Debtor and Surety for U.S. Inc.. In such a position people leave the ground of sovereignty and all capacity for asserting their unalienable rights in favor of being presumed as having exercised their sovereignty and free-will autonomy for the purpose of going along with the government's assertion that they sacrifice everything for the “public good,” i.e. the PCT. By so doing people lose their standing in law, i.e. they “die a civil death in the law.” They are placed in the legal position of mortmain (i.e. as if deceased) and are shorn of capacity for asserting their rights, since the presumption is that they have already exercised those rights for the purpose of being placed in the position they are in, i.e. property of the government with a lien against you and everything your life labor could ever create, including your children. The private being (the real individual) is sacrificed for the good of the public (the imaginary collective).[*]When people die such a civil death in the law they are like ghosts, and thereby incapable of managing their own affairs and enjoying their unalienable rights. Like the estate of a decedent, they are then managed by the executors/administrators of the estate, in probate. Such is the condition of every “citizen of the United States” today in law, managed by the government agencies acting as executors/administrators of their estates in bankruptcy, legal incapacity, and civil death as assets of the bankrupt US. The US is property of the private Real Parties of Interest, the Creditors in bankruptcy.[*]The 14th Amendment was allegedly established for the purpose of creating a citizenship for the liberated blacks, and other disenfranchised people, who otherwise had no citizenship because they could not comply with the requirements for state citizenship. What actually happened was that the blacks were taken off of the Southern slave plantations and placed into the slave plantation of US Inc., a far worse lot. The government then gradually absorbed everyone else-including state citizens-into the same condition.[*]1871-1913. Officers of the actual government held office in dual capacity, i.e. in both USA and US Inc. status.[*]1912. Bonds issued by US Inc. came due but US Inc. did not have the resources for paying their creditors (the seven families that founded the Federal Reserve Bank), so US Inc.'s owner (the actual government) was required to pay the balance. The national government was also without sufficient funds to meet US Inc.'s obligations, so the creditors settled for all of the assets of both US Inc. and the national government instead of foreclosure on and liquidation of the entire country. By so doing they expropriated the nation-both USA and US Inc. Sic transit America.[*]1912. US Inc. forms an agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank (It is important to note that both of these entities are private corporations which removes the general allegations of treason or fraud from this relationship). Through this agreement US Inc. must function in debt, even though they have neither funds nor resources for financing their operation.[*]1912. The first corporate only Senators are seated in the next election year by popular vote of the US Inc. registered voters. The original-jurisdiction national Senators of the States did not assume office that year and at least one third of the nation's Senators seats were lawfully and voluntarily vacant.[*]February 3rd, 1913. US Inc. passes its 16th Amendment and Congress orders the Secretary of State to enter it as ratified even though the States had not ratified it according to Law. The Secretary complied. It should be noted that this would not have been lawful if it were a national Constitution amendment, however it was perfectly legal within the colorable, de facto corporation. It should also be noted that where the national Constitution already had a 16th amendment and where the Supreme Court says that the new 16th Amendment did not do anything, this corporate amendment must simply be a space filler entered such that US Inc.'s Constitution (1871) would have the same number of amendments as that of the national Constitution (1787).[*]April 8th, 1913. US Inc. passes its 17th amendment and Congress orders it to be entered as ratified in the exact same manner as they did with US Inc.'s 16th Amendment. This amendment changes where US Inc.'s Senators are elected. This amendment is not even lawfully possible as a national Constitution amendment for several reasons, not the least of which is that the amendment would have required that Congress first pass an amendment that stated that they had the power to say where Senators are elected before they could even deliberate on such a subject matter, after which they would then have to have competent ratifications performed on such amendments in accord with constitutional limits, not as was done with US Inc.'s 16th Amendment.[*]December 23, 1913. The Congress, late at night with only a small cadre of supporters present, passed the Federal Reserve Act, surrendering the creation and management of the nation's currency into the hands of a cartel of private-and mostly foreign-bankers. Currency is the single most essential and critical commodity in the world, embodying more law and principles of commerce than any other. Since all interactions are “commerce,” and the medium of doing business in commerce is currency, money is in a very significant sense the measure of all things. By abandoning control and management of the money supply the nation surrendered all capacity for claiming sovereignty. The government lost its independent treasury (one of the requirements in law for national sovereignty). The United States Government became a mere fiefdom, or administrative arm, of the bankers, who now owned the store.

Passage of the Federal Reserve Act was a major milestone on the “road to serfdom” that this entire progression outlines. The conspiratorial nature of matters is exemplified in comments by one of the major actors in the triumph of the Federal Reserve, Edward Mandell House, who had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:



“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.

Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

• 1917. Corporate-only Senators begin participating in all matters with those Senators who still had original jurisdiction government capacity, as a result of which all activities of the government were performed in corporate capacity only.[*]1917. President Wilson was re-elected by the Electoral College, but only US Inc.'s Senate performed the Senate confirmation necessary for seating the national President. There was no national government Senate confirmation; no national seats were seated and all remained vacant. Note: the national President is also the Military's Commander in Chief, and under the nation's status of being ruled by the private, commercial, martial-law rule of the Bankers and English Crown, the business needs of the nation have remained under US Inc. control since 1871, i.e. ever since US Inc. was incorporated and made operational over such matters.[*]1917-1944. All national government seats are and remain vacant, and US Inc. continues maintaining the business needs of the government under martial-law rule.[*]June 5, 1933. US Inc. declares bankruptcy under House Joint Resolution, “HJR,” 192.[*]1935. The Social Security Act is passed.[*]On application, the new Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) creates a private Trust with a trust name that sounds like the name of the applicant except the Trust's name is spelled with all capital letters. SSA makes the applicant a co-trustee of the namesake Trust, designates the SSA General Trust Fund as the Beneficiary of the namesake trust, and assigns the Trust a Social Security General Trust Fund Account number re the applicant for accounting and identification purposes.[*]1938. In Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 U.S. 64-92, the U.S. Supreme Court sets the presumption re the status and capacity of an individual as that of General Capacity/General Partnership relationship with the namesake Trust, as if the two (2) entities-individual and namesake Trust-were one-in-the-same person.[*]1944. In the Bretton Woods Agreement US Inc. is quit-claimed into the newly formed International Monetary Fund (hereinafter “IMF“) in exchange for the power allowing US Inc.'s President the right of naming (seating and controlling) the governors and general managers of the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Bank also formed in that agreement (codified at United States Code Title 22 § 286). It must be noted that this act created an unlawful conflict of interest between US Inc. (with its new foreign owner) and its purpose of carrying out the business needs of the national government. This is the cause of our use of the term “original-jurisdiction” government. With the new foreign owner of US Inc. a conflict of interest is created between the national government and US Inc., even though the contracted purpose of US Inc. has not changed on its face.[*]1962. At the National Governor's Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, US Inc. informs the governors, under the guise of “public necessity”, that they must all form, or reform existing, private corporations under US Inc. (in their state's interest), so that the people will not discover what the state governments are doing with the people's money (dabbling in foreign notes, i.e. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), bonds, and evidences of debt), which activity is forbidden from State governments by their own State Constitutions, which information would likely cause a people's revolt ending in the State official's being at worst killed and at least replaced. The proposed incorporation deadline was 1968.[*]1970. By this time each State revised its constitution and statutes and formed private corporate entities of the name “STATE OF (X)” (where “(X)” is representative of the common State name), and then vacated their original jurisdiction government seats in favor of foreign ownership and control under the mandate of US Inc.[*]It appears that this was all done so a General Partnership could be presumed as existing between “The State” (of the national Union of States) and “STATE OF (X)”, a private corporation. Said STATE OF (X), as General Partner, then assumes the role of governmental operator/controller. This scenario is further proven by the fact that these corporate entities cannot handle gold and silver coin of the United States of America in commercial transactions without violating the Par Value Modifications Act and the Foreign Currency Exchange Act.[*]April 19th, 1994. Federal agents attack, burn, and raze the compound, killing approximately 100 of the members of the sect, without any lawful cause for the action.[*]50 USC 1520 et seq. demonstrates that there exists an agenda for using Americans (Sovereign and otherwise) as biological test subjects. This is a fundamental breach of an alleged Constitutional contract.[*]President Clinton pushes for a mandatory health care bill for the purpose of placing the physical bodies of all Americans under control of US Inc., with international identification attached, for the purpose of tagging the populace., The computer that would handle the tracking is identified with the acronym: B.E.A.S.T.

What the above progression depicts is the systematic growth of the power, scope, and pervasive control of Government exercised against the American people by foreign, criminal, and hostile powers. This same dreary gestalt constitutes the nature of man's history on this planet as far back as the eye can see. Civilizations rise, fall, and disappear, replaced by new ones that-based upon being founded on, and functioning in accordance with, wrong principles-are foredoomed for extinction, as were all of their predecessors and as all future civilizations will be until mankind finally learns and ceases “beating a dead horse” by structuring law, commerce, religion, and social organization in general on principles that are existentially impossible.

The above progression has proceeded in America by implementing such strategy as:

1. Relentlessly instilling in people the foundational idea that governments in general are absolutely essential in the society of man and that the Government in America is the people's friend and servant, i.e. a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” These premises are untrue-self-serving cons by those who want the power.

2. Creating governmentally owned corporate franchises, such as a “citizen of the United States” and one's all-capital-letter name, with which people are deceived into identifying.

3. Regarding every citizen of the United States as contractually being:

a. A corporate citizen, i.e. a corporate franchise;

b. A co-trustee (with duties) and co-beneficiary (with privileges) of the 14th Amendment Public Charitable cestui que Trust;

c. Pledged as an asset in the bankruptcy of US Inc., and therefore a co-surety for the debts of US Inc.;

d. An enemy of the Creditors;

e. Chattel property of the Bankers and Power Elite;

f. A slave with no capacity for asserting any rights, no standing in law, and no capacity for contracting.

4. Functioning on the presumption that the individual being, with autonomy and free will, knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily contracted into the situation of being united-like heads and tails of a coin-with a corporate entity created and owned by the Government.

As per the established maxim of law, “As a thing is bound, so it is unbound,” the way out of the problem is within and through the problem. This is accomplished by understanding what the problem is, i.e. its structure and character, just as solving the problem of a plugged drain is accomplished by realizing that the problem is the plugged drain, whereby the solution consists of unplugging the drain. “Know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

The United States Library of Congress now has between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 books on law. Any law library is a daunting place, possessing row after row of shelves with books full of fine print. Making knowledge of such “law” even more unattainable is not only that what passes for law today perpetually changes, altered by every new court case/opinion, legislative enactment, and all of the ever-changing policies, rules, and regulations of administrative agencies, but an immense amount of the world's law today, as actually implemented, is unwritten and inaccessible.

This is not only because judges operate in general equity in which the ultimate arbiter of a matter is the “conscience of the court” (i.e. how the judge feels about something that day), but because almost all of the world's law is the private Law Merchant of the Creditors in bankruptcy of the world's nations, essentially all of which are insolvent and in receivership to the Bankers.[3] This private Law Merchant is of ancient origin, and is implemented today by men whose identities are unknown to the mass of mankind.

In the face of this undependability of law we may ask some fundamental and ingenuous questions:

1. Is there such a thing as genuine law that is timeless, stable, and dependable?

2. If so, can such universal law be effectively invoked and utilized in practice today? How can I use it to ensure my inalienable sovereign birth rights to life and happiness?

3. If genuine law exists, why is it not taught and uniformly utilized instead of the chaotic and colorable charade that dominates the legal field today?

4. Can we integrate said universal law with the ephemeral, desultory “law” that now enslaves the overwhelming majority of people on this planet? source: Private Contract Service

See 15 HISTORICAL FACTS

[3] All wars of the 20^th Century were the result of the losing country's not having had “articles of agreement” with the International Bankers. Phrased another way, before a war the country that was the eventual loser of the war did not have such agreement and after the country was defeated, it did. See Behind the Scenes, Lurks the BANK. http://www.wealth4fr…gal_history.htm COMMERCE GAME EXPOSED

http://www.worldnews…w/PLAY_BALL.htm

[fg_admin]

See also:

What is the “unpardonable sin”? How does sin become “unforgivable”?

http://www.christian…donablesin.html

________________

What is the “unpardonable sin”? How does sin become “unforgivable”?

See this page in: Dutch (Nederlands), French (Français)

“I would like to just know if what it says in Matthew is true. It states that every sin is forgivable, except if a person speaks badly about the Holy Spirit. I have attended a private Christian school and one day my Bible teacher was saying that a person is not forgiven if he/she speaks against the Holy Spirit. As he stated that… I thought something against the Holy Spirit. I did not mean to… it just happened. I prayed and asked forgiveness, but does that mean I am forgiven or eternally condemned? SINCERELY WORRIED”Clearly, this student is confused about the true meaning of this biblical reference. Once understood, this young person can rest assured that the unpardonable sin was most certainly not committed in this case. In fact, this sin cannot be committed by a true Christian.

An unforgivable sin is described in Mark 3 and Matthew 12. These passages involve Jesus Christ's repeated and widespread public defeat of Satan and his demons. Many readers and theologians have been confused about the true nature of this sin. As you read these verses for yourself (below), bear in mind part of the purpose of Jesus Christ's ministry was to directly confront darkness with the light of truth in a public battle of pure good versus pure evil. The only being in the universe that is more powerful than the Evil One, is God. He is the only one with enough power to bind Satan himself and forcibly dispossess him.

Mark 3:22-30 states,

“And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, 'He has Beelzebub,' and, 'By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.' …'Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation;' because they said, 'He has an unclean spirit'” (NKJV, emphasis added / Note: The Pharisees made the same charge in Mat 9:34.).

In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says to the Pharisees,

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (NKJV, emphasis added).

What is the context of these statements, and what is the exact sin described?

PhariseesThe Pharisees had long observed the sinless Jesus Christ. They observed him doing undeniable and powerful miracles that were, at the very least, clear evidence of power supplied by God. These impressive miracles were freely given in pure kindness and love to release people from obvious suffering and the oppression of horrible evil.

However, the Pharisees had so firmly set their hearts against accepting Jesus as the Messiah that they rejected the obvious truth before them and perversely twisted it to influence the crowds. They publicly credited the most ultimately evil being in the universe with these precious, godly miracles. In other words, they called the precious and holy Spirit of God, the unclean spirit of Satan. In effect, they charged Jesus Christ with sorcery; one who is in league with Satan. These charges are not only appalling and extremely serious, but clearly absurd. As Jesus immediately responded,

“How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. No one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house” (Mark 3:23-27; also see Luke 11:14-23).

Note that…

“Jesus does not deny the existence of other exorcists here. [See: Matthew 7:22-23] …Exorcists often invoked a higher spirit to get rid of a lower one. …But a demon's retreat that meanwhile drew attention to another of Satan's servants would only be a strategic retreat; such possible activity contrasts with the wholesale exorcizing of the masses that Jesus undertakes, which clearly signifies a defeat of Satan [Matthew 12:29; 4:24; 8:16; Mark 1:34, 39; 5:12, 15; Luke 9:1] …the parable about tying up a protective householder means that Jesus had defeated Satan and could therefore plunder his possessions–free the demon-possessed” [size size=”-1″][Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), pp. 143, 80.][/size].

Author Dr. Henry Morris insightfully clarifies the true nature of Pharisees' sin:

“The unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted in various ways, but the true meaning cannot contradict other Scripture. It is unequivocally clear that the one unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (John 3:18; 3:36). Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible. 'My spirit shall not always strive with man,' God said long ago (Genesis 6:3).

…In the context of this particular passage (Matthew 12:22-32), Jesus had performed a great miracle of creation, involving both healing and casting out a demon, but the Pharisees rejected this clear witness of the Holy Spirit. Instead they attributed His powers to Satan, thus demonstrating an attitude permanently resistant to the Spirit, and to the deity and saving Gospel of Christ” [size size=”-1″][Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers, 1995), emphasis added.][/size].

What is the difference between the two types of blasphemy described in Matthew 12? Why is the sacrifice of Christ ineffective as an atonement for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Respected Christian theologian Dr. F.F. Bruce writes,

“…Speaking against the Son of man might be due to a failure to recognize Him for what He is. So Paul recalls how in his pre-Christian days he thought it his duty to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. But if, having seen the light on the Damascus road, he had deliberately closed his eyes to it and kicked out against the goad which was directing him into the true path, that would have been the sin against the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit persuades and enables men to accept Christ and enjoy the saving benefits of the gospel [John 16:8; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14; Acts 7:51], but if anyone refuses to submit to the Spirit's gracious constraint, preferring to call good evil and evil good, how can the gospel avail for him? The deliberate refusal of the grace of God is the one sin which by its very nature is irremediable” [size size=”-1″][F.F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 46-47.][/size].

“Anyone who rejects the Holy Spirit's convicting influence and does not repent will not be forgiven, 'neither in this world, neither in the world to come' (Matthew 12:32)” [size size=”-1″][Ray Comfort, “The Unpardonable Sin,” The Evidence Bible (Gainesville, Florida: Bridge-Logo Publishers, 2001).][/size].

“Jesus thus regards blasphemy against the Spirit—permanently rejecting his identity (Matthew 12:18) as attested by the Spirit's works (12:28)—as the worst of sins”

[Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 80.].

The situation was similar at the biblical city of Capernaum, where Jesus Christ performed an extraordinary number of miracles and taught many important public lessons. In the end, most of the people of Capernaum remained unrepentant. Like the Pharisees, they persistently rejected the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit who bore witness to the true identity of Jesus Christ, their Messiah.

They turned away from the abundant light graciously provided to them, and chose to remain forever in their unbelief. They persistently refused to listen to anything the Holy Spirit was telling them. Like the Pharisees, they chose self-imposed blindness. For this reason, they were strongly judged. “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required…” (Luke 12:48). Thus, along with nearby Chorazin and Bethsaida, Capernaum received a very stern warning from Jesus, “It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee” (Matt. 11:21-24).

How can one know whether or not they have committed “the unforgivable sin?”

Bible researcher Larry Richards points out,

“This reference to an unforgivable sin has troubled many unnecessarily. Those who are concerned that they have done something for which Jesus will not forgive them show a very different attitude from the Pharisees, who refused to accept even the most compelling evidence that Jesus was the Son of God. The person who rejects the Spirit's message about Jesus will not be forgiven. Anyone who seeks Jesus' forgiveness certainly has not committed the unforgivable sin” [size size=”-1″][Larry Richards, 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1993), pp. 241-242.][/size].

Scholars Morris and Clark further explain:

“Persons deeply troubled by a guilty conscience often fear that they have sinned too grievously for God to forgive and save them. Others, dominated by a carnal, calculating attitude, hope to sin to the limit and then come to Christ to escape the consequences. Thus with radically different motives, both ask 'Is it possible to sin beyond the point of being saved?'

God's ability to save is not limited by man's sinfulness. In fact, every person, before he accepts Jesus Christ as Savior, is in total rebellion against God, though sinfulness many not manifest itself with equal intensity in every person. The Apostle John taught believers,

'If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the propitiation (satisfaction) for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:1-2).

The Bible is filled with examples of people who receive forgiveness for all manner of wickedness, for 'the Lord's hand is not short that it cannot save' (Isaiah 59:1). God's boundless grace prompted Paul to exclaim, 'When sin increased, grace abounded all the more' (Romans 5:20). And Paul's personal testimony showed God's redemptive purpose and power were not limited by man's sinfulness, thus encouraging those who feared they had sinned too grievously to be saved (1 Timothy 1:15-16).

While God's ability to save is boundless, the Bible clearly shows that there are certain conditions under which He will not save. For instance, God will not save those who neglect or despise Christ's sacrifice in an effort to find an alternate salvation plan.

'For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins' (Hebrews 10:26).

This warning pertains to those who 'trample under foot the Son of God' and regard His blood as unclean (Hebrews 10:29). God the Father has appointed His Son's sacrifice as the sole way of salvation and will not grant salvation to those who seek it by any other means.

The book of Romans contains the most concentrated teaching on the subject of salvation to be found in the New Testament, and it begins with a panorama of man's sin. Those who rejected God's revelation concerning Himself and worshipped idols instead were given over by God to a more severe moral defilement (Romans 1:22-24). Those who worshipped man instead of God received equally severe punishment: 'For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions,' the result being rampant immorality and homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27).

'And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper' (Romans 1:28).

Several conclusions can be drawn from these warnings.

• First, God actively punishes unconfessed sin not only after the sinner's death, but also during that person's life.[*]Also, moral degradation is a punishment of God upon willful spiritual ignorance.[*]Further, when God gives one over to a depraved mind, that person's sensitivity to sin is deadened and his chances for repentance thereby lessened.[*]Yet, God does not violate man's freedom, forcing man to sin and then judging him for it. Rather, men in this state welcome more extreme degradation and actively embrace it: 'who being past feeling, have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness' (Ephesians 4:19).

Consequently, Scripture states both that Pharaoh hardened his heart against God, and that God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 8:32; 9:12).

The Holy Spirit convicts men of their sin and draws them to the Savior (John 16:8-11; 3:5-6). Yet, at least once in history, God has punished iniquity by withdrawing His Spirit. Prior to the world-wide flood, God said, 'My Spirit will not strive with man forever,' and then He appointed 120 years during which repentance could be made (Genesis 6:3). Instead of repenting, man used God's longsuffering as an occasion for further sin, and only Noah and his family were spared.

God has further declared that He will not forgive blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31).

…If one's conscience is bothering him to the point that he feels he is too guilty for God to forgive, he has the assurance of God's Word that forgiveness is possible. The very fact that he is bothered by his sinfulness shows that the Holy Spirit has not abandoned him nor has God given him over to a depraved mind.

The real danger arises, however, when one can continually violate God's law and never feel the slightest remorse over his rebellion. The Bible's warning should jolt the spiritually flippant out of their complacency:”

“It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31).

“Seek the Lord while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have compassion on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon” (Isaiah 55:6).

[Henry M. Morris and Martin E. Clark, The Bible Has the Answer, Revised and Expanded (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1976), pp. 244-246, emphasis added.]

George Standison and staff further clarify,

” With this exception [the unforgivable sin], there is nothing in the category of human offenses that is beyond the reach of divine forgiveness. 'Although your sins be like scarlet, they shall be white as snow.' is the ancient promise given by God to men; 'though they be like crimson, they shall be as wool' [Isaiah 1:18].

This is not to be interpreted, however, as an encouragement to sin, but rather as an inducement to repentance. If the sinner truly repents, imploring God's forgiveness for Jesus' sake; if he accepts him as Saviour and endeavors, with divine help, to live thereafter a Christian life, he will not only be forgiven, but will be kept from falling back into sin. This is the teaching of the Gospel, and it is exemplified in innumerable cases today. We have many instances everywhere of great sinners who have forsaken their evil ways and who are now living the new life, sustained by divine power.

'There's a wideness in God's mercy

Like the wideness of the sea.'

We have the Saviour's distinct assurance, 'Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out' [John 6:37]. There is no punishment for sins that are forgiven. 'Jesus paid it all'” [Bible Answers for 1000 Difficult Questions (Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers)].

If you, dear reader, have not yet truly repented of your sins and asked our Lord Jesus Christ for the total forgiveness and salvation that only his precious blood can provide, we urge you to do so immediately. It is the wisest decision you can ever make!

Can a Christian commit “the unpardonable sin”?

Authorities agree that the answer is no. Here's why.

“If we refuse to accept the testimony given to us by the Holy Spirit, fight off His conviction of our sin, and never accept the truth, we will never come to Christ for salvation. In Christ, all our sins are forgiven. Therefore, no Christian can commit the unpardonable sin. Only an unregenerate person who refuses to come to Christ will die in his or her sins” [size size=”-1″][Freedom in Christ (Knoxville, Tennessee: FICM.org, 2002).][/size].

“…once you accept Jesus, that part of the Holy Spirit's job is complete, thus you can't blaspheme His work. Naturally, He continues to work with you, and you can be stubborn and resist Him as a Christian, but you can't blaspheme Him. Live unproductively, carnal and unspiritual, possible. But commit the unpardonable sin? It's just not possible for a true Christian. Remember what Paul said: [Darrin Yeager (DYeager.org, 2002).]

“There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus…” (Romans 8:1).

A true Christian cannot commit a sin for which there is no forgiveness. We are protected by the power of God (1 Peter 1:5). Although we can certainly grieve the Holy Spirit, he still seals us for the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30). The Apostle Paul was confident “that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6, NKJV).

Bear in mind, however, if someone who claims to be a Christian is responding to the Holy Spirit and Christ in a way very similar to that of the Pharisees, despite the strong witness of the Holy Spirit and abundant exposure to the truth of God's Word, it is highly doubtful that the person was ever saved. Only God knows for sure. The evidence clearly points to an unregenerate heart.

“…for a tree is known by its fruit. …For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:33-34, NKJV).

[fg_admin]

Here was his response and our response to his response:

____________________

HIS RESPONSE:

---

Start Original Message

---

Sent: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:26:58 -0700 (PDT)

From: raymond riggs

Subject: Dirty Uncle Sam

http://fpc.state.gov/documents See blacks law dictionary 14th Amendment

and http://www.usavsus.info/

___________________

OUR RESPONSE TO HIS RESPONSE:

Raymond,

1. The first link does not work.

2. The second link appears below, and has been expanded to include the differences we pointed out between statutory and constitutional citizenship. The author of that link has the SAME problem you do.

http://famguardian.o…dies/USvUSA.htm

Now please directly address the points we made.

_____________________

Here is the definition of Fourteenth Amendment to which he refers:

Quote:

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. The Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution of the United

States.

It became a part of the organic law July 28, 1868, and its importance entitles it to special mention. It creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states: forbids the making or enforcement by any State of any law abrldnlng the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; and secures all “persons” against any state action which is either deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denial of the equal protection of the laws.

[Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 785]

The operative phrase is “or at least recognizes”. The courts had already created such a citizenship through judicial decree PRIOR to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. All the Fourteenth Amendment did was recognize what the judiciary had already created because the constitution didn't define the meaning of “Citizen” or “citizen of the United States” prior to the time that the Fourteenth Amendment had been passed.

[fg_admin]

You are once again PRESUMING that the people can consent to ANYTHING without violating the law. The fact is THEY CANNOT. The Supreme Court said in New York v. United States that states of the Union are not allowed to consent to the enlargement of federal powers within their borders under the Constitution. The people can't consent either, because while they are in a state and participating in the affairs of state government as jurists and voters, they are part of the state government and hence, they cannot consent to give up their authority to the federal government. And, the rights of people in the states of the Union are, per the Declaration of Independence, inalienable, which means you cannot lawfully consent to give them away in relation to a real de jure government. So, even with their consent, it still cannot be done without destroying the constitutional separation of powers and therefore being unconstitutional.

It is not constitutional to offer to those domiciled outside of federal territory and within a state of the Union, because:

1. It can't be offered to population protected by the constitution whose rights are unalienable. An unalienable right is a right that cannot be sold, bargained away, or transferred by any means, including a franchise.

2. It causes the commission of a crime of impersonating a statutory citizen under 18 U.S.C. 911, which is a public officer. Congress STILL cannot establish public offices within states of the Union under 4 U.S.C. 72.

3. It puts federal judges in a criminal conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. 208, because they are put in charge of protecting rights protected by the constitution of those domiciled outside their jurisdiction and filing Bivens actions, and yet also puts them in charge of maximizing revenues from DESTROYING those same rights and forcing people to participate. Do YOU want judges who are criminals?

4. It is based on fraud, because you can't call yourself a “citizen” in a place you have never physically lived in on federal territory.

5. It is based on fraud because the people participating still think they are private parties, and the courts lie about their status, and when the correct status is described in pleadings, the government tries to hide that fact by calling the litigant “frivolous”.

6. It is based on fraud because it is being offered as a government program, and yet cannot be offered by a de jure government. A private corporation that is not a government is the only thing that can offer such a franchise, and that corporation cannot use sovereign immunity to expand its program, and yet it does. It is fraud because they won't describe it as it REALLY is: Private business activity that can lawfully be refused and which a REAL de jure government would and should defend your right NOT to participate in.

7. It is unconstitutional because people domiciled in states of the Union and serving within state governments will have to violate their state constitutions, most of which forbid simultaneously serving in federal office and state office at the same time. State judges, legislators, and employees who sign up for this FEDERAL program and become federal public officers will be committing TREASON. For a list of states with this constitutional prohibition, see:

SEDM Jurisdictions Database, Litigation Tool #10.010

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Liti…onsDatabase.pdf

8. It will result in crime by jurors in federal court and voters because many of those jurors and voters will be receiving the benefit and yet will also be ruling on cases relating to the benefit or voting for candidates based on promises to INCREASE the benefit. That is the same problem the income tax has. It is a CRIME to rule on any issue you have a financial interest in (18 U.S.C. 208) and it is a CRIME to bribe a voter (18 U.S.C. 201). And by the way: all jurors and voters are public officers in their STATE governments as well. See 18 U.S.C. 201, which describes jurors as public officers. BOTH will be happening if everyone receiving ANY kind of federal benefit is not disqualified from serving as a jurist or a voter. Personally, I think it ought to be against the law to be a jurist or a voter if one receives ANY government benefit for this very reason. The original Articles of Confederation refused to count “paupers and vagabonds” as voters, and they were smart for this. That corruption will cause EVERYONE to be compelled to participate. Do you REALLY want to have to go in front of a WHOLE ROOM full of tax consumers on the jury and the bench and tell them that you don't want to subsidize their activities or bribe them? How do you think that is going to turn out?

Quote:

“And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous.”

[Exodus 23:8, Bible, NKJV]

“He who is greedy for gain troubles his own house,

But he who hates bribes will live.”

[Prov. 15:27, Bible, NKJV]

“Surely oppression destroys a wise man's reason.

And a bribe debases the heart.”

[Ecclesiastes 7:7, Bible, NKJV]

Don't you have any sense of decency or morality at all that you couldn't at least forsee any of these illegal activities? The whole focus of this website is the morality and respect for law that is so lacking from the political sphere. There are MANY things that even if it is lawful under man's law to consent to, that Christians CANNOT consent to without committing mutiny against God under HIS trust indenture called the Bible. This is exhaustively proven in:

Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007

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

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

We believers are God's trustees under the Bible trust indenture and covenant and we have a duty to faithfully execute it. Jesus did not repeal the old testament and we still have to obey it. Don't you even CARE what God's law says about what we are supposed to do and why didn't you at least take a stab at what God's law says on the subject before forcing us to deal with all these issues that you ignored? Or is Jesus just a liability insurance salesman for the wrath of hell for you and God's law has been repealed by “grace”? That's corrupted christianity's message and its BULLSHIT. See and rebut the following if you disagree:

Policy Document: Corruption of Modern Christianity, Form #08.012

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

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

The only place it is constitutional is where the constitution doesn't apply: Federal territory. Offering it to those domiciled in states of the Union and protected by the constitution is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers doctrine. All it does is magnify corruption that is already rampant and is caused by a violation of the separation of powers. That doesn't help anything.

Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers Doctrine, Form #05.023

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

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

All government franchises are civil law, and civil statutory federal law cannot be enforced outside of federal territory or against those not domiciled on federal territory without violating the separation of powers doctrine. Enforcing “health insurance franchises” within a state of the Union is unconstitutional for the same reasons that enforcing the “trade or business” franchise within a state of the Union is unconstitutional, as documented in:

The “Trade or Business” Scam, Section 17

http://famguardian.o…usinessScam.htm

The only way to MAKE it constitutional is to authorize private companies to do it or to create private corporation that will do it and seed it with government money initially, but privatize it IMMEDIATELY.

Quote:

“Congress cannot authorize a trade or business [INCLUDING a health insurance business] within a State in order to tax it.”

[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]

The above case has NEVER been overruled. They STILL cannot lawfully establish franchises WITHIN states of the Union. They tip toe around this by refusing to call it a franchise, but that is the ONLY way they can reach inside states and outside their territory to begin with: Contracts, of which franchises are a type of contract. Therefore, they CANNOT contract with people in a state to create public offices. That is why everyone who occupies said offices has to physically MOVE to the district of columbia and work on the king's land to begin with. Because that is the only way they can lawfully reach these people under civil law.

The design for our system of government came from Charles Montesquieu in his seminal treatise entitled The Spirit of Laws. The Founders used this book more often than any other in the drafting of the Constitution. See:

Spirit of Laws

http://famguardian.o…tOfLaws/sol.htm

It was Montesquieu who first invented the idea of a republican government based on three branches, which is what we have, and we were the first country to implement his plan. He wrote his book in 1752 and the USA was first to implement it in 1789. In this book, Montesquieu predicted the very corruption personified in any kind of “benefit” or franchise, that would cause people to sell their vote to get more state favors. He talked about how franchises would extinguish what he called the “spirit of equality” that is the foundation of the constitution, and replace it with privilege, hypocrisy, injustice, and corruption on the scale we have now. His predictions are coming true in spades both with the original Social Security Act in 1935 and now with this bill. The corruption, he said, would come from the “benefits” and privileges and the flow of money that would corrupt the voters and cause the indolent to sanction the government through their vote to steal from the rich and give to the poor. This prediction is precisely the same prediction that the U.S. Supreme Court made in the Pollock case in 1895 after the first income tax: That income tax, and every other type of franchise tax, would pit the poor against the rich in a battle of class warfare using the voting booth as the battlefield.

Quote:

“The principle of democracy is corrupted not only when the spirit of equality is extinct [BECAUSE OF FRANCHISES!], but likewise when they fall into a spirit of extreme equality,and when each citizen would fain be upon a level with those whom he has chosen to command him. Then the people, incapable of bearing the very power theyhave delegated, want to manage everything themselves, to debate for the senate,to execute for the magistrate, and to decide for the judges.When this is thecase, virtue can no longer subsist in the republic. The people are desirous of exercising the functions of the magistrates, who cease to berevered. The deliberations of the senate are slighted; all respect is then laid aside for the senators, and consequently for old age. If there is no more respect for old age, there will be none presently for parents; deference to husbands will be likewise thrown off, and submission to masters. This licence will soon become general, and the trouble of command be as fatiguing as that of obedience. Wives, children, slaves will shake off all subjection. No longer will there be any such thing as manners, order, or virtue.

We find in Xenophon's Banqueta very lively description of a republic in which the people abused their equality. Each guest gives in his turn the reason why he is satisfied.”Content I am,” says Chamides, “because of my poverty. When I was rich, I was obliged to pay my court to informers, knowing I was more liableto be hurt by them than capable of doing them harm. The republic constantly demanded some new tax of me; and I could not decline paying. Since I have grown poor, I have acquired authority; nobody threatens me; I rather threaten others. I can go or stay where I please. Therich already rise from their seats and give me the way. I am a king, I was before a slave: I paid taxes to the republic, now it maintains [PAYS “BENFITS”TO] me: I am no longer afraid of losing: but I hope to acquire.“

The people fall into this misfortune when those in whom they confide, desirous of concealing their own corruption, endeavour to corrupt them. To disguise their own ambition, they speak to them only of the grandeur of the state; to conceal their own avarice, they incessantly flatter theirs.

The corruption will increase among the corruptors, and likewise among those who are already corrupted. The people will divide the public money among themselves [to pay”BENEFITS”], and, having added the administration of affairs to their indolence, will be for blending their poverty with the amusements of luxury.But with their indolence and luxury, nothing but the public treasure [“BENEFITS”] will be able to satisfy their demands.

We must not be surprised to see their suffrages [VOTES at the ballot box] given for money [GOVERNMENT “BENEFITS” UNDER A FRANCHISE]. It is impossible to make great largesses to the people without great extortion: and to compass this, the state must be subverted. The greater the advantages they seem to derive from their liberty, the nearer they approach towards the critical moment of losing it. Petty tyrants arise who have all the vices of a single tyrant. The small remains of liberty soon become insupportable; a single tyrant starts up, and the people are stripped of everything, even of the profits of their corruption.”

[The Spiritof Laws, Charles de Montesquieu,

SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…/sol_08.htm#002]

[fg_admin]

Neo,

On the basis of pure logic:

1. The courts repeatedly hold that all the powers of the government are delegated by the people.

Quote:

“The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people.”

[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

2. The government as a collective engages in violence, in the form of police brutality and military aggression.

3. They got the authority to do that from us.

4. That authority has been exercised from the foundations of this country, and even at the founding, we had an overwhelmingly Christian nation.

5. In the old testament, God repeatedly told the Israelites to spy out a new land and conquer it. The famous Jericho story is about such a conquest.

6. Nowhere in the bible does it say that any provision of the old testament has been REPEALED. The PENALTIES towards Christians are repealed, because of salvation, forgiveness, and Jesus' sacrifice, but old testament law STILL remains.

…Consequently, the scripture you quote must be taken out of context. Where did Jesus say you should NEVER wield the sword? The instance you cite was one specific instance. Even the “turn the other cheek” parable has a correct meaning COMPLETELY different than most people interpret it:

http://famguardian.o…nOtherCheek.htm

[fg_admin]

History repeats itself. This newsaper cartoon came from the 1930's when FDR was doing the same thing that Obama is doing now.

[attachment=131:Chicago Tribune 1934.jpg]

[fg_admin]

SOURCE: http://www.dailytidi…/NEWS02/4020311

Here is what the media has to say about one of the people on trial in the PQI trial.

_________________

Ashland man convicted of tax fraud

Gino Casternovia, 61, set up sham businesses

April 02, 2010

An Ashland man accused of helping people set up sham businesses to avoid taxes was one of eight people convicted Wednesday of tax fraud by a federal jury in Florida.

Following a monthlong trial in Pensacola, Eugene “Gino” Casternovia, 61, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He faces a possible 25-year prison sentence and $750,000 in fines. Sentencing is set for July 6.

The U.S. Department of Justice contended Casternovia presented and sold tax-fraud schemes at various trade shows and conferences around the world, including a presentation for 400 people aboard a cruise ship in the Mediterranean in May 2007.

U.S. District Judge Margaret C. Rodgers set aside a jury verdict against another Ashland man, Robert Pendell, who was a former employee of Casternovia's, and acquitted him of all counts. Another employee, Mark Lyon of Williams, previously pleaded guilty to all charges filed against him and agreed to testify for the prosecution in the cases concluded this week.

Casternovia was arrested in August 2008. He and his wife, Kathryn, had lived in Ashland for 25 years and owned the now-defunct Northlight vegetarian restaurant and the Rainforest Cafe.

Several of his acquaintances spoke up for him in a September 2008 pretrial hearing in Medford, urging U.S. District Judge Mark D. Clarke to allow him to remain at home while he awaited trial.

Clarke, however, ruled that Casternovia, along with Pendell and Lyon, were flight risks because they allegedly had moved $3.4 million into offshore accounts, and an additional $1.2 million was unaccounted for. He also said evidence presented by prosecutors showed the men claimed their permanent residence to be in Panama.

Department of Justice prosecutors alleged that the defendants promoted fraudulent schemes through Pinnacle Quest International, also known as PQI and Quest International. (PQI was described as an umbrella organization for vendors who sold tax and credit card debt elimination scams.)

Prosecutors said some of the PQI vendors, including Casternovia's Southern Oregon Resource Center for Education (SORCE), sold bogus theories and strategies for tax evasion. For fees starting at $10,000, they said, SORCE assisted clients in the creation of a series of sham business entities in the United States and Panama.

Evidence presented alleged that other tax-related PQI vendors denied the legitimacy of the income tax system on various theories and provided customers with a purported legal defense that consisted of a paper trail of frivolous correspondence.

“The use of abusive trust schemes and fraudulent debt elimination tactics intended to conceal income from the IRS isn't tax planning; it's criminal activity,” said Victor S.O. Song, chief of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, after the verdicts.

According to the evidence presented, none of the defendants filed tax returns while they were involved in the PQI conspiracy. Two of the defendants, Claudia Hirmer and Mark Hirmer, were convicted for evading the payment of over $2 million in income taxes, penalties, and interest for years 1996 through 2001.

Prosecutors said another PQI vendor, MYICIS, operated as a computerized “warehouse bank” in which PQI clients pooled their money in an effort to hide their assets from the Internal Revenue Service. MYICIS had 3,000 clients and approximately $100 million in deposits over a three-year period, they said.

According to evidence presented at trial, PQI purported to sell only CDs and tickets to offshore conferences. However, PQI clients seeking the tax evasion and debt elimination vendors were required to join PQI, with the cost of membership ranging from $1,350 to $18,750.

from local and wire sources

[fg_admin]

Update on the PQI Case from Larry Becraft. Gino was one of the co-defendants

_________________________________

Folks,

In 1990, Franklin Sanders and 26 others, including his wife, were indicted in Memphis for a giant conspiracy against the IRS, and we went to trial in Jan. 1991. I represented the lead defendant, Franklin, and Jeff Dickstein represented “bad boy #2,” Mike Osborne. While there were a number of defendants acting pro se in that case, there were also several retained and court-appointed lawyers. It did not take long for us to get unified: you simply cannot have adverse and conflicting defendants in a conspiracy case because if you do, you are sunk by the finger pointing. After 6 months of trial, the jury returned 52 not guilty verdicts in the Sanders case.

Recently, the defendants in the PQI case were tried down in Pensacola, Florida for a conspiracy. Jeff represented Claudia and Mark Hirmer, but most of the other defendants went pro se. Arnie Manansala used ideas and theories popular with the Sam Kennedy crowd. Shortly after he filed those Kennedy pleadings, he was arrested and denied bond. The other defendants followed and filed pleadings similar in nature, but apparently prepared by some “Dr. Iecke” with “GateKeepers,” a Texas organization. Instead of having unity for defense in that PQI case, there was division. None of the defendants following Iecke's advice made any opening statements, cross-examined witnesses to contest facts, took the stand or even made a closing argument. They believed that at some stage of the case pursuant to an idea presently popular, the Army would rush into the courtroom, end the case and free them. Instead of defending, these defendants were convinced to stand mute during their whole trial. BAD ADVICE!!!

All PQI defendants have been convicted and now are in jail. Rack up another one for flaky ideas. Perhaps Jeff will supply some comments to us.

Larry

[fg_admin]

God said the same thing about the above situation as that man said. Here is what He said:

Quote:

' They will throw their silver into the streets, And their gold will be like refuse; Their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them In the day of the wrath of the LORD; They will not satisfy their souls, Nor fill their stomachs, Because it became their stumbling block of iniquity.

[Ezekial 7:19, Bible, NKJV

SOURCE: http://www.biblegate…19&version=NKJV]

Sin Confessed

⁹ Therefore justice is far from us,

Nor does righteousness overtake us;

We look for light, but there is darkness!

For brightness, but we walk in blackness!

¹⁰ We grope for the wall like the blind,

And we grope as if we had no eyes;

We stumble at noonday as at twilight;

We are as dead men in desolate places.

¹¹ We all growl like bears,

And moan sadly like doves;

We look for justice, but there is none;

For salvation, but it is far from us.

¹² For our transgressions are multiplied before You,

And our sins testify against us;

For our transgressions are with us,

And as for our iniquities, we know them:

¹³ In transgressing and lying against the LORD,

And departing from our God,

Speaking oppression and revolt,

Conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.

¹⁴ Justice is turned back,

And righteousness stands afar off;

For truth is fallen in the street,

And equity cannot enter.

¹⁵ So truth fails,

And he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.

[Isaiah 59:15, Bible, NKJV]

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Sent to us by a reader. Refers to Sam Kennedy and his latest Restore America Scam.

_______________

Like I have warned everyone about the 1099 OID nonsense. That nonsense had all of the tin cans tied to the butts of the prevaricators of the nonsense that tapped out in the jingle jangle on the floor behind them in code “Imma a liar.” You are only allowed to be a private banker when a spawn of satan attorney in the back office of a title company approves you coming out of slavery for a few seconds to sign a promissory note of which he approves. Same for signing a note in a bank. The few seconds of private banker status must be approved by one of the supervisor commercial agents who are managing the bankruptcy. You all better read Sun Tzu. The oldest trick in the books of intrigue and doublecross is to send out agents to start an opposition movement and find out who are the opposition and what is their strength. Then surgically remove them without disturbing the entire population about which you are seeking to enslave. Like in the recent vilification of a few extreme militia folks who have the right to plot what ever they want to plot for the restoration of lawful republican government. the laws are not yet on the books for thought crimes, but making plans can be called a conspiracy to commit a crime. Think about how bizarre it is for the people who are plotting to restore lawful republican government to be charged with sedition. It is the attorneys of “this state” who are perpetrators of sedition.

The media always works for those who grant them favors. Now you all know why opposition leaders set up governments in exile until the stupid and ignorant people become so disgusted with the dictators like Obama that they will vote out the Obama dictator regime and vote in the leader of the government in exile. Look up the history of Formosa/Taiwan if you want to know how peaceful revolution is done. You all better wake up to what is about to happen. In about 2 years there will be about 50 million over 60 white male middle class baby boomers who lived the illusion of reality to the fullest and expect the golden reward which they aint gonna get, and who are going to wake up one day and figure out that they got nothing remaining to lose…… and when that happens…. well, hell is a comin. Remember one thing: If the users of a process are prosecuted and the teachers of the process are not, then the teachers work for the de facto black ops corporate government. Kennedy/Berkovitz being one, and IRS agent/CPA Bannister being another. Remember Johnny Johnston and Jerry Wilkins. They taught absolute truth about the financial system that eventually came to pass just recently. They were prosecuted. Johnny is and Jerry was a true Patriot. Bannister was prosecuted in a crafted staged trial and found not guilty. That is called rehabilitation. The advice below is excellent.

Until you reject benefits of this state and file your Title 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g) statement with the Assistant Commissioner International and change the status of the social security number and yourself, YOU CANNOT CLAIM ACCESS TO THE DE JURE LAW. All you have is the public policy of the association. All law moves by commercial contract. And, in relation to the communitarian welfare benefit religious association called “the United States” you are committing sedition if you are attempting to dissolve the association and go back to de jure republican law of The United States of America. Because the presumption is that you are a resident member of the benefit association, then you are automatically guilty of sedition against “the United States.” The Matrix is real.

We must wait for the stupid people to wake up to the truth before effective restoration plans can be implemented. Just be patient. The spawn of satan will destroy themselves. During this patient waiting time, to amuse yourself and or preparing for the end, rent the movie Spartacus and view it over and over until you can identify all of the parallels of life in The United States of America today. you will be amazed. And remember Romans 13 v 1-7. Give the spawn of satan what they say they want and they cannot insert themselves into your life and demand money from you in the form of fines and fees. If the speed limit is 60, go 59. If the stop line is obviously too far from the stop sign, then stop once behind the stop line and then stop 2 or 3 more times until you can see down the street. But if you only stop once at the sign, and pass over the stop line, well, some thug with a gun can give you a citation and demand payment of a fine. Money to the spawn of satan who operate “this state” is like air is to us. Choke to death the spawn of satan by giving them what they say they want.

[fg_admin]

Franklin,

Fabulous commentary and insights! Thank you for sharing that! Couldn't agree more.

For those who want to read more about Ayn Rand, see:

http://famguardian.o…lt/JohnGalt.htm

I think an even better approach would be for Jesus to accuse them of committing a crime in trying Him, and put them on the defensive. He should have demanded that they prosecute themselves before they can engage in selective and criminal enforcement upon Him, and state that this is a violation of equal protection of the laws.

Below the line is Hank Rearden's speech from Atlas Shrugged, copied from section 1.9 of the latest edition of the Great IRS Hoax:

____________________

According to the procedure established by directives, cases of this kind were not tried by a jury, but by a panel of three judges appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources; the procedure, the directives had stated, was to be informal and democratic. The judge's bench had been removed from the old Philadelphia courtroom for this occasion, and replaced by a table on a wooden platform; it gave the room an atmosphere suggesting the kind of meeting where a presiding body puts something over on a mentally retarded membership.

One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges. “You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defense,” he announced.

Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:

“I have no defense.”

“Do you-” The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. “Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?”

“I do not recognize this court's right to try me“.”

“What?”

“I do not recognize this court's right to try me.”

“But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime.”

“I do not recognize my action as a crime.”

“But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal.”

“I do not recognize your right to control the sale of my Metal.”

“Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?”

“No, I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly.”

He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretense which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.

“Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?” asked the judge.

“No. I am complying with the law – to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent [this is the foundation of what it means to have a socialist democracy]. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defense is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice.”

“But Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself.”

“A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognized by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please [he and everything he owns is GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, a SLAVE, as part of a socialist democracy]. Very well, Do it.

“Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle – the principle of the public good.”

“Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it – well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.”

A group of seats at the side of the courtroom was reserved for the prominent visitors who had come from New York to witness the trial. Dagny sat motionless and her face showed nothing but a solemn attention, the attention of listening with the knowledge that the flow of his words would determine the course of her life. Eddie Willers sat beside her. James Taggart had not come. Paul Larkin sat hunched forward, his face thrust out, pointed like an animal's muzzle, sharpened by a look of fear now turning into malicious hatred. Mr. Mowen, who sat beside him, was a man of greater innocence and smaller understanding; his fear was of a simpler nature; he listened in bewildered indignation and he whispered to Larkin, “Good God, now he's done it! Now he'll convince the whole country that all businessmen are enemies of the public good!”

“Are we to understand,” asked the judge, ” that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?”

“I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals.”

“What . . . what do you mean?”

“I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifices.”

“Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognize its right to do so?”

“Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes – by refusing to buy my product.”

“We are speaking of . . . other methods.”

“Any other method of curtailing profits is the method of looters – and I recognize it as such.”

“Mr. Rearden, this is hardly the way to defend yourself.”

“I said that I would not defend myself.”

“But this is unheard of! Do you realize the gravity of the charge against you?”

“I do not care to consider it.”

“Do you realize the possible consequences of your stand?”

“Fully.”

“It is the opinion of this court that the facts presented by the prosecution seem to warrant no leniency. The penalty which this court has the power to impose on you is extremely severe.”

“Go ahead.”

“I beg your pardon?”

“Impose it.”

The three judges looked at one another. Then their spokesman turned back to Rearden. “This is unprecedented,” he said.

“It is completely irregular,” said the second judge. “The law requires you to submit a plea in your own defense. Your only alternative is to state for the record that you throw yourself upon the mercy of the court.”

“I do not.”

“But you have to.”

“Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary action?“

“Yes.”

“I volunteer nothing.”

“But the law demands that the defendant's side be represented on the record.”

“Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure [at least APPEAR] legal?“

“Well, no . . . yes . . . that is, to complete the form.”

“I will not help you.”

The third and youngest judge, who had acted as prosecutor, snapped impatiently, “This is ridiculous and unfair. Do you want to let it look as if a man of your prominence had been railroaded without a –” He cut himself off short. Somebody at the back of the courtroom emitted a long whistle.

“I want”, said Rearden gravely, “to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it – I will not help you.”

“But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself – and it is you who are rejecting it.”

“I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve the appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognized. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice.”

“But the law compels you to volunteer a defense.”

There was laughter at the back of the courtroom.

“That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen,” said Rearden gravely, “and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition – which you cannot force – that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there – I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine – I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe you have the right to force me – use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action.“

The eldest judge leaned forward across the table and his voice became suavely derisive: “You speak as if you were fighting for some sort of principle, Mr. Rearden, but what you're actually fighting for is only your property, isn't it?”

“Yes, of course. I am fighting for my property. Do you know the kind of principle that represents?”

“You pose as a champion of freedom, but it's only the freedom to make money that you're after.”

“Yes, of course. All I want is the freedom to make money. Do you know what that freedom implies?“

“Surely, Mr. Rearden, you wouldn't want your attitude to be misunderstood. You wouldn't want to give support to the widespread impression that you are a man devoid of social conscience, who feels no concern for the welfare of his fellows and works for nothing but his own profit.”

“I work for nothing but my own profit. I earn it.”

There was a gasp, not of indignation, but of astonishment, in the crowd behind him and silence from the judges he faced. He went on calmly:

“No, I do not want my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record. I am in full agreement with the facts of everything said about me in the newspapers – with the facts, but not with the evaluation. I work for nothing but my own profit – which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage – and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with – the voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it and do it well. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people – the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbors and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologize for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interest, let the public destroy me. This is my code – and I will accept no other. I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men that you can ever hope to accomplish – but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognize the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, not do I recognize the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life. I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work – my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good – that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices – that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation – as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own – I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!“

The crowd burst into applause.

Rearden whirled around, more startled than his judges. He saw faces that laughed in violent excitement, and faces that pleaded for help; he saw their silent despair breaking out into the open; he saw the same anger and indignation as his own, finding release in the wild defiance of their cheering; he saw the looks of admiration and the looks of hope. There were also the faces of loose-mouthed young men and maliciously unkempt females, the kind who led the booing in newsreel theaters at any appearance of a businessman on the screen; they did not attempt a counter-demonstration; they were silent.

As he looked at the crowd, people saw in his face what the threats of the judges had not been able to evoke: the first sign of emotion.

It was a few moments before they heard the furious beating of a gavel upon the table and one of the judges yelling:

“- or I shall have the courtroom cleared!”

As he turned back to the table, Rearden's eyes moved over the visitors' section. His glance paused on Dagny, a pause perceptible only to her, as if he were saying: It works. She would have appeared calm except that her eyes seemed to have become too large for her face. Eddie Willers was smiling the kind of smile that is a man's substitute for breaking into tears. Mr. Mowen looked stupefied. Paul Larkin was staring at the floor. There was no expression on Bertram Scudder's face – or on Lillian's. She sat at the end of a row, her legs crossed, a mink stole slanting from her right shoulder to her left hip; she looked at Rearden, not moving.

In the complex violence of all the things he felt, he had time to recognize a touch of regret and of longing: there was a face he had hoped to see, had looked for from the start of the session, had wanted to be present more than any other face around him. But Francisco d'Anconia had not come.

“Mr. Rearden,” said the eldest judge, smiling affably, reproachfully and spreading his arms, “it is regrettable that you should have misunderstood us so completely. That's the trouble – that businessmen refuse to approach us in the spirit of trust and friendship. They seem to imagine that we are their enemies. Why do you speak of human sacrifices? What made you go to such an extreme? We have no intention of seizing your property or destroying your life. We do not seek to harm your interests. We are fully aware of your distinguished achievements. Our purpose is only to balance social pressures and do justice to all. This hearing is really intended, not as a trial, but as a friendly discussion aimed at mutual understanding and co-operation.“

“I do not co-operate at the point of a gun.”

“Why speak of guns? This matter is not serious enough to warrant such references. We are fully aware that the guilt in this case lies chiefly with Mr. Kenneth Danagger, who instigated this infringement of the law, who exerted pressure upon you and who confessed his guilt by disappearing in order to escape trial.”

“No. We did it by equal, mutual, voluntary agreement.”

“Mr. Rearden,” said the second judge, “you may not share some of our ideas, but when all is said and done, we're all working for the same cause. For the good of the people. We realize that you were prompted to disregard the legal technicalities by the critical situation of the coal mines and the crucial importance of fuel to the public welfare.”

“No. I was prompted by my own profit and my own interests. What effect it had on the coal mines and the public welfare is for you to estimate. That was not my motive.”

Mr. Mowen stared dazedly about him and whispered to Paul Larkin, “Something's gone screwy here.”

“Oh, shut up!” snapped Larkin.

“I am sure, Mr. Rearden,” said the eldest judge, “that you do not really believe – nor does the public – that we wish to treat you as a sacrificial victim. If anyone has been laboring under such a misapprehension, we are anxious to prove that it is not true.”

The judges retired to consider their verdict. They did not stay out long. They returned to an ominously silent courtroom – and announced that a fine of $5,000 was imposed on Henry Rearden, but that the sentence was suspended.

Streaks of jeering laughter ran through the applause that swept the courtroom. The applause was aimed at Rearden, the laughter – at the judges.

Rearden stood motionless, not turning to the crowd, barely hearing the applause. He stood looking at the judges. There was no triumph in his face, no elation, only the still intensity of contemplating a vision with a bitter wonder that was almost fear. He was seeing the enormity of the smallness of the enemy who was destroying the world. He felt as if, after a journey of years through a landscape of devastation, past the ruins of great factories, the wrecks of powerful engines, the bodies of invincible men, he had come upon the despoiler, expecting to find a giant – and had found a rat eager to scurry for cover at the first sound of a human step.

If this is what has beaten us, he thought, the guilt is ours.

He was jolted back into the courtroom by the people pressing to surround him. He smiled in answer to their smiles, to the frantic, tragic eagerness of their faces; there was a touch of sadness in his smile.

“God bless you, Mr. Rearden!” said an old woman with a ragged shawl over her head. “Can't you save us, Mr. Rearden? They're eating us alive, and it's no use fooling anybody about how it's the rich that they're after – do you know what's happening to us?”

“Listen, Mr. Rearden,” said a man who looked like a factory worker, “it's the rich who're selling us down the river. Tell those wealthy bastards, who're so anxious to give everything away, that when they give away their palaces, they're giving away the skin off our backs.“

“I know it,” said Rearden.

The guilt is ours, he thought. If we who were the movers, the providers, the benefactors of mankind, were willing to let the brand of evil be stamped upon us and silently to bear punishment for our virtues – what sort of “good” did we expect to triumph in the world?

He looked at the people around him. They had cheered him today; they had cheered him by the side of the track of the John Galt Line. But tomorrow they would clamor for a new directive from Wesley Mouch and a free housing project from Orren Boyle, while Boyle's girders collapsed upon their heads. They would do it, because they would be told to forget, as a sin, that which had made them cheer Hank Rearden.

Why were they ready to renounce their highest moments as a sin? Why were they willing to betray the best within them? What made them believe that this earth was a realm of evil where despair was their natural fate? He could not name the reason, but he knew that it had to be named. He felt it as a huge question mark within the courtroom, which it was now his duty to answer.

This was the real sentence imposed upon him, he thought – to discover what idea, what simple idea available to the simplest man, had made mankind accept the doctrines that led it to self-destruction.

“Hank, I'll never think that it's hopeless, not ever again, said Dagny that evening, after the trial. “I'll never be tempted to quit. You've proved that the right always works and always wins – ” She stopped, then added “ – provided one knows what is the right.”

[fg_admin]

They can do ALMOST anything they want to federal territory with a couple exceptions. It's a british crown colony, as the case you cited admits. The only limitations are the organic laws of that place. The Thirteenth Amendment applies EVERYWHERE, including federal territory. Hence, you can't ignore the WHOLE constitution there. Also, some of the protections of the Constitution have been extended to federal territories by act of Congress, and those so extended cannot later be revoked. The Downes case you cited also says that.

If they can't institute involuntary servitude in the Virgin Islands because of the Thirteenth Amendment, then even though they don't have direct or indirect taxes there, its STILL slavery and still unconstitutional if it is a tax on labor. So they have to play the same “public office”, “trade or business” franchises, and TIN games there as well to evade the limitations of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Quote:

“That it does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is too clear for argument. Slavery implies involuntary servitude—a state of bondage; the ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property, and services [in their entirety]. This amendment was said in the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall, 36, to have been intended primarily to abolish slavery, as it had been previously known in this country, and that it equally forbade Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie trade, when they amounted to slavery or involuntary servitude and that the use of the word 'servitude' was intended to prohibit the use of all forms of involuntary slavery, of whatever class or name.”

[Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 542 (1896)]

“Other authorities to the same effect might be cited. It is not open to doubt that Congress may enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by direct legislation, punishing the holding of a person in slavery or in involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime. In the exercise of that power Congress has enacted these sections denouncing peonage, and punishing one who holds another in that condition of involuntary servitude. This legislation is not limited to the territories or other parts of the strictly national domain, but is operative in the states and wherever the sovereignty of the United States extends. We entertain no doubt of the validity of this legislation, or of its applicability to the case of any person holding another in a state of peonage, and this whether there be municipal ordinance or state law sanctioning such holding. It operates directly on every citizen of the Republic, wherever his residence may be.”

[Clyatt v. U.S., 197 U.S. 207 (1905)]

Rights attach to land, while privileges attach to status. Rights can be given legislatively can't be taken away legislatively. But privileges can be taken away at any time legislatively.