fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
The legislative meaning of the word “citizens,” in the clause “citizens resident within this state,” contained in Gen. Laws 1890, c. 102, § 2, whereof the material portion is set forth in the foregoing petition, is what is particularly sought in this inquiry. The respondents affirm, and the petitioner denies, that it includes domestic corporations.
The definition of the noun “citizen,” according to Webster (Internat. Diet.), is: “(1) One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city: a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises. (2) An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. (3) A person, native or naturalized, of either sex, who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to reciprocal protection from it. (4) One who is domiciled in a country, and who is a citizen, though neither native nor naturalized, in such a sense that he takes his [civil] legal status from such country.” According to Bouvier. Law Diet.: “Citizen. In English Law. An inhabitant of a city. * * * The representative of a city, in Parliament. * * * In American Law. One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for Representatives in Congress and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. * * * One of the sovereign people. A constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with the people. * * * A member of the civil state, entitled to all its privileges. * * * A person may be a citizen for commercial purposes and not for political purposes. 7 Md. 209. * * *”
[Greenough v. Bd. of Police Com’rs of Town of Tiverton, 74 A. 785, 30 R.I. 212 (R.I., 1909) ]
-
fg_admin
AdministratorDecember 3, 2016 at 5:47 pm in reply to: Questions challenging citizenship misconceptionsANSWER:
1. We claim to be both state citizens and constitutional federal citizens AT THE TIME OF BIRTH. But we distinguish between a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen, that congress CANNOT legislate for, and a STATUTORY citizen, that Congress can. The word “reside” found in the Fourteenth Amendment implies DOMICILE, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since domicile is voluntary, then even Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” status is voluntary and avoidable.
2. The “United States” is defined in the CONSTITUTIONAL context to mean states of the Union and exclude federal territory. Congress can only legislate for STATUTORY citizens, not STATE CONSTITUTIONAL citizens. So does it really matter if one is BOTH these types of citizens? NO!
3. The U.S. Supreme court held that the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t place anyone in the states under federal legislative control. The only context in which they have any relationship at all to the national government is as voters or jurists. Otherwise they are PRIVATE and beyond the jurisdiction of Congress.
“It would be the vainest show of learning to attempt to prove by citations of authority, that up to the adoption of the recent Amendments [the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment], no claim or pretense was set up that those rights depended on the Federal government for their existence or protection, beyond the very few express limitations which the Federal Constitution imposed upon the states—such as the prohibition against ex post facto laws, bill of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the states, and without that of the Federal government. Was it the purpose of the 14th Amendment, by the simple declaration that no state should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the states to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the states?
We are convinced that no such result was intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the states, which ratified them. Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the states as such, and that they are left to the state governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no state can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873) , emphasis added]
They haven’t been disenfranchised. They can still vote in national elections and state elections. Nor are they serving TWO MASTERS, since they are only domiciled in one of the two jurisdictions at a time.
4. The ‘U.S. citizen” you refer to that is also a state citizen is a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen, but not a STATUTORY 8 USC 1401 citizen. You can vote as a state citizen WITHOUT being subject to federal jurisdiction and WITHOUT being a STATUTORY 8 U.S.C. 1401 citizen. You present what is called a “false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy, because you fail to realize the difference between STATUTORY “U.S. citizens” and CONSTITUTIONAL “citizens of the United States”. For the differences, see:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
5. Every election voters are allowed to vote for NATIONAL congressmen and STATE and LOCAL officials.
6. We don’t call ourselves “citizens” for any purpose OTHER than obtaining a passport, and we were “citizens” at the time of birth but not statutory citizens or even “state citizens” thereafter because we do not “reside” in a state at the time of making application. Hence, we have no civil status under state or federal law per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). You falsely presume that once a person is a CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen” by virtue of birth or naturalization, they are ALWAYS a STATUTORY citizen, state citizen” or CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen”. This is false dichotomy that once again reveals that you really don’t understand the TWO components of citizenship: DOMICILE, and NATIONALITY, or how these two interact to produce CONSTITUTIONAL statuses and civil STATUTORY statuses.
No, by registering to vote, one is NOT committing an act of treason, because they are not STATUTORY citizens under the laws of Congress. They instead are NON-resident non-persons under ordinary acts of Congress, who can have exclusive allegiance to the CONFEDERATION of states represented by the term “United States” in the Constitution, WITHOUT having allegiance to anyone in the District of Criminals or having conflicting allegiance of any kind.
7. You are participating in the SAME body politic, which is “We the People” that start off the Constitution. That group is merely expanded to include everyone. “We the People” doesn’t have to mean ONLY WHITE MALES anymore.
8. You falsely presume that one MUST choose to be represented. Those who don’t elect to be STATUTORY citizens by virtue of not selecting a civil domicile need not be represented. You also falsely presume that those who are “U.S. citizens” cannot simultaneously be state citizens. They can be both. Think of each as a separate “office” or role. When you vote, you exercise the FEDERAL office when you vote for NATIONAL offices and the STATE office when you vote for STATE and LOCAL officers. It is a maxim of law that when two rights occur in the same person, it is the same as if there are TWO SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONS. These legal “persons” are in deed separate but they are animated by the same physical being.
You cannot vote for state officers WITHOUT meeting the residency requirements for the state you are in. And if you don’t meet the residency (domicile) requirements for ANY state, then you can’t vote for NATIONAL officers either because you would not be a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen at that point either. Remember: “reside” in the Fourteenth Amendment means DOMICILE. No domicile, no STATE or FEDERAL citizenship AT ALL.
See: Saenz v Roe, 526 U.S. 473, 119 S.Ct. 1430, 143 L.Ed.2d. 635 (1999)
9. By saying you are a state citizen with a domicile in a CONSTITUTIONAL state of the Union, you rule out any civil status whatsoever under the laws of Congress. Civil status and domicile go together and you can only be domiciled in ONE place at a time and be subject to the civil laws of ONE place at a time. Those civil laws, in turn, can only be enforced with such a domicile, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) indicates.
The reason that state citizens falsely believe they are subject to the civil statutes of Congress is because CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY citizenship has been made to at least APPEAR synonymous using word games and what is called “equivocation”. These word games are documented in:
Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitDomTaxStatusOptions.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex-SinglePg.htm
10. A GOVERNMENT sovereign can do those things, and the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the GOVERNMENT is one of “delegated powers”. The people cannot delegate to a GOVERNMENT that which they themselves cannot personally do, now can they?
The “war” they declare can be and should be as peaceful as possible and should be done by WITHDRAWING sponsorship of those who cause injury. The making of “laws” can be done the same way that Congress does MOST of their laws: civil franchises. If in fact the government is one of delegated powers, then however Congress acquires rights over others, including franchises, the people themselves also have the same EQUAL right. And if they DON’T have that right, they are slaves and serfs. See:
Foundations of Freedom, Video 1: Introduction (equality)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ggFibd5hk
11. a. I am a STATE national, who owes allegiance EXCLUSIVELY to THE PEOPLE of the state and not the government that serves them. In this country, the “state” as legally defined is the PEOPLE of the state, who are the sovereigns, and not the “government” that serves them. I can still have said allegiance WITHOUT a civil domicile or any status under any act of Congress. Domicile determines whose civil statutes one must obey.
b. I am only an “American” if I am a voter or jurist. If I choose not to exercise “membership” in the club called the “state” as a voter or jurist, then I am simply a PRIVATE human and not an “American”.
c. I don’t have a country if I have no domicile and no political affiliation. I can withdraw my political affiliation at any time by withdrawing my allegiance. The definition of “permanent” in the context of “allegiance” under Title 8 of the U.S. Code permits me to withdraw that allegiance. See 8 USC 1101(a)(31). If I withdraw that allegiance, then I cease to be a member and revert to simply a “human” . So long as I DO NOT have allegiance to any other government in the process of suspending my allegiance, then it is not an expatriating act under 8 USC 1481.
d. I am neither if I have not domicile and no allegiance. If I choose to join the body politic by registering to vote, declaring residency, and serving on jury duty (voluntary), then I become a state citizen and an inhabitant. Otherwise, I am a “stateless person” and a nonresident”.
e. I only owe allegiance when I want protection. If I don’t want protection, then I don’t have to have allegiance. It can be temporary because “permanent” can mean any length of time I DEFINE it to mean. See 8 USC 1101(a)(31).
http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-i/section-1101/
12. The state citizen is called “citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside“. If they don’t “reside”, meaning have a domicile in any state, they are NEITHER state citizens NOT CONSTITUTIONAL “citizens of the United States”, nor CONSTITUTIONAL “persons”. Furthermore, one can be a CONSTITUTIONAL “person” WITHOUT being a “CIVIL “person”. “People” in the CONSTITUTION are exclusively human beings and their ONLY protection is the Bill of Rights. CIVIL STATUTORY “persons” are offices in the government domiciled on territory owned by the government and working for the government. See:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
13. One is not SUBJECT without allegiance AND domicile coinciding. Domicile is voluntary and so is allegiance, and therefore you aren’t required to be a SUBJECT. If one withdraws their allegiance and domicile but does not have allegiance to another sovereign and did not intend to expatriate, they can remain a “state national” WITHOUT expatriating their nationality.
14. A child acquires the NATIONALITY of his father. They DO NOT necessarily inherit the civil status of their father, because they can change their domicile. Once again, CONSTITUTIONAL “citizens” under the Fourteenth Amendment and STATUTORY “citizens” under 8 USC 1401 are NOT equivalent. Congress can legislative for STATUTORY citizens, but not CONSTITUTIONAL citizens. We claim to be a “state citizen” and “citizen of the United States” AT THE TIME OF BIRTH, and subsequently to have temporarily removed our domicile and allegiance and therefore to be NEITHER a “state citizen” NOR a “citizen of the United States”.
15. You only have political rights if you have a DOMICILE within the government you exercise those rights within. Try registering to vote or serving on jury duty as a “nonresident” with no allegiance. They will laugh you out of the registrar’s office or the jury pool, even if you WERE born in the country and were a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen at the time of birth, and even though you never expatriated.
16. No. One is a CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen of the United States” BECAUSE they are a state citizen. One cannot be a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen WITHOUT being a state citizen. HOWEVER, one can be a STATUTORY 8 USC 1401 citizen WITHOUT being EITHER a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen or a STATE citizen. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
17. Once again, the “United States” as used in the Constitution, in a geographical sense, means states of the Union and EXCLUDES federal territory. In a NON-GEOGRAPHICAL and POLITICAL sense it means THE PEOPLE within the states of the Union and NOT any state or federal government. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “the state” AS PEOPLE, and NOT a “government”. Therefore, one can have allegiance to PEOPLE without withdrawing allegiance to the SUBSET of people in this group who are WITHIN the state they are domiciled within.
18. CONGRESS has its own STATUTORY citizens, but it doesn’t have its own CONSTITUTIONAL citizens. The STATUTORY citizens it has are franchisees of the national government who have NO CONSTITUTIONAL rights, but only legislative franchises within a legislative socialist democracy. If I claim to be a state citizen, then THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is my homeland. There are THREE distinct sovereignties recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt. Each is politically and legally distinct from the other. One can be a member of one without being a member of the other. Your question reveals that you don’t understand these three legally distinct sovereignties or how one’s ALLEGIANCE is affected by them.
19. As you pointed out earlier, you said that you can’t be a state citizen without be a Fourteenth Amendment citizen. We agree this is true. However, we don’t advocate being either, and we have a First Amendment protected right to politically and legally disassociate by removing our domicile and allegiance WITHOUT expatriating, and becoming a “nonresident” and “stateless person”. Every attempt to regulate or tax us in that state is a usurpation, keeping in mind that the Declaration of Independence clearly identifies ALL JUST POWERS of government as deriving from the CONSENT of the governed. Those who don’t consent to be governed or protected by the civil statutory laws, by implication, have to be left alone as a matter of law. The very definition of “justice” demands it. Justice is the right to be left ALONE, and the founding father said in the Federalist Papers that the very purpose of establishing government to begin with is “justice”.
Those who have taken the above path are no more “lawless” or anarchistic than the government itself. The government insists that IT has the right to be left alone and can only be civilly sued WITH ITS WRITTEN CONSENT through a legislative act. Those who want to sue it must produce evidence of consent. Why doesn’t the government have the SAME burden of proof when IT wants to enforce against YOU? To suggest otherwise is to impute SUPERIOR or SUPERNATURAL powers to the government, to establish an unconstitutional title of nobility, and to create an unconstitutional state-sponsored religion in which CIVIL RULERS must be “worshipped” under the state-sponsored “BIBLE” called the civil code.
-
fg_admin
AdministratorDecember 3, 2016 at 5:47 pm in reply to: Questions challenging citizenship misconceptionsHere are his questions he poses from the above document:
_________________________________
Some people believe that they are state citizens, citizens of the United States of America or claim to be a sovereign without making any record that they are not such persons as pursuant to law. Also, some people seem to have a problem understanding the Act of the 40th Congress, Stat 15, Chapter 249, pps 223-224 (see herein evidenced below).
In regard to these issues my questions are as follows:
1. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This language denotes or sets forth a dual citizenship.
Question: How can you claim to be a state citizen and not be a United States citizen if this amendment only allows you to be both?
2. It is evidenced (or defined) in Ballentine’s Law Dictionary that a citizen of a state is a citizen of the United States residing in any state of the Union.
Question: How can you be a state citizen without being a citizen of the United States as the above legal reference sets forth?
3. The Supreme Court of Utah stated in Dyett v Turner (20 Utah 2d 403) that people of the several states were disfranchised by the 14th Amendment, see also Congressional Record-House, June 13, 1967, pp 15641-15646.
Question: A citizen has political rights, how do you vote in elections?
4. Black’s Law Dictionary defines Constitutional Liberty or Freedom as a fundamental right of a citizen which affords him the right to participate in the government of his state or country, which includes voting for any federal, state and local public officers.
Question: If you are a state citizen, how do you vote if you have to be a US citizen?
5. So, you are calling yourself a state citizen or a citizen of the United States of America.
Question: When is the election held that elects the officers of the state government that you are part of if you have political rights?
6. Anyone that is calling himself a state citizen is stating that he has political rights.
Question: Are you not committing an act of sedition against the suffrage laws (of right) that the republic of your birth had prior to the 14th Amendment?
7. It is my understanding that in order to participate in a body politic or be a member of a civil society that one is not born into that one has to be naturalized into it; hence the women and the blacks—or ex-slaves—must have been given a form of ‘denizenship’ by the federal government (see relevant post-14th Amendment amendments).1
Question: Are you participating in a different state body politic than the ex-slaves and the women that were not allowed to vote prior to the 14th Amendment?
8. People that claim to be state citizens must have representation in the state and federal governments because citizens are due representation in American law.
Question: How can the any state and federal officers represent you if you cannot vote for any such officers because you have to be a US citizen to vote?
9. In the Dred Scott decision—which was a pre-14th Amendment case—the Supreme Court stated that the United States could not impose law on the people that lived in the Territories of the United States, let alone the states.
Question: Being that you are a state citizen and tacitly claiming that the governments represent you, as Congress is now imposing law on the people in the several states are you saying that all state and federal law applies to you?
10. There are people that claim to be sovereign.2 A sovereign can declare war on another nation and also mandate laws on people it or he (or she) governs.
Question: As you claim to be a sovereign, can you do the above listed things?
11. Some general questions addressed to people that claim to be state citizens:
Question: What is your nationality?
Question: Are you an American? America is a land mass not a country.
Question: What is the name of your country?
Question: Are you an inhabitant or a state citizen?
Question: Do you owe allegiance to the United States?
12. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment sets forth that so-called “state citizens” are persons or inhabitants in its long and detailed language.
Question: Where is state citizen referenced in the section above mentioned?
13. In international law: a citizen is also deemed a subject. This is also defined in Ballentine’s Law Dictionary; reference definition: subject. citizen.
Question: As you are a state citizen, are you a subject of the governments?
14. In international law, a child carries the citizenship of his father.
Question: As your father was presumed to have voted and only US citizens may vote in elections, how can you be a state citizen and not a citizen of the United States or claim to be a citizen of the United States of America?
15. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines “expatriation” as: A voluntary change of allegiance from one country to another, effecting an absolute termination of all civil and political rights as of the date of such act.
Question: As you are claiming to be a state citizen and you are tacitly stating that you have political rights, do you have the same (civil) rights as an ex-slave?
16. In Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 under the definition of “Insurgent” a “Rebel” is defined as being part of a faction that has of main purpose of turning the sovereignty (e.g. political sovereignty) of his country over to another power.
Question: As you are claiming to be a state citizen with the 14th Amendment political system in place, are you not turning the political sovereignty (which is not delegated by the Constitution of the United States) of your country (state) over to the United States which would make you a rebel?
17. There are some people that state that the Preamble of the so-called “Expatriation Act” (Stat 15, Chapter 249) is in reference to governments that are foreign to America.
Question: In reference to the language of the preamble, if the United States invested such immigrants with citizenship, who are required when such citizenship is granted to forever give up their allegiance to every foreign state, prince, sovereignty, etc. when they were granted American citizenship, how does this apply as some people have stated? That is to say: that the allegiance that is to be forever disavowed is to the foreign countries of which these immigrants came from; hence, there was no reason for them to give up their allegiance as it had already been done when they were granted American citizenship; moreover, how would that action be settling the “public peace” as stated by Congress?
18. American Heritage Dictionary defines “expatriate” as: To renounce allegiance to one’s homeland; and further Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, defines “country” as: By country is meant the state of which one is a member.
Question: As it appears that Congress has its own citizens and possesses land that it is not constitutionally authorized to control, as you claim to be a state citizen, are you saying that the whole United States of America is your homeland?
19. Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto had the plan that the Communists (so-called) were going to abolish countries and nationality.
Question: As you are claiming to be a state citizen and not claiming the nationality of your country, are you a Communist?
SUMMARY
I could ask many more questions, but it seems to me that no one is a citizen unless he chooses to accept state citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment; if one does he is fundamentally stating that he has the same standing as a federal citizen.
It is obvious that the states are not operating under the same political system as they did prior to the Fourteenth Amendment; this is clear by reading case law and using common sense. And in order to implement a new political system that some people were not part of all had to be naturalized into the new one, i.e. had to be granted citizenship into the new political system that no one is born into (under original constitutional premise that followed the law of nations). Moreover, under international doctrine people who do not protest something the whole of the people are deemed to agree with it. As the de facto political system continues to operate—and has been for the past 130 plus years—it is ventured that everyone is naturalized into it, or—citing one legal fiction—the rule of international law that one carries the citizenship of his father would be invoked.
You may stand on the grounds that the Fourteenth Amendment was not legally ratified and the current governmental system is a fraud. If you prescribe to such thinking, this question is asked: Are you taking any benefits from this Fourteenth Amendment system which only applies to “citizens of the United States”, which includes voting? If you are this would negate your claim on the fraud. And once again, did your father vote in this governmental system? Under presumption and international law, this would make you a citizen and national of the United States under operations of law.
Although de jure—or state citizenship—is referenced in the end part of section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, technically there is no state citizenship. Under certain principles citizenship may be taken away, but nationality remains intact.3 Anyone that is claiming to be a state citizen is going to be tacitly saying that he has representation in these de facto governments that have been created under the Fourteenth Amendment.
As most Americans refer to America as their country, by expatriating, or terminating the inflicted “national of the United States”4 status, is one not fitting into the definition of said term by quitting the communist country and citizenship that US citizens have? In other words: Everyone is deemed a US citizen, or citizen of the United States, unless they terminate the citizenship under proper legal formats. Simply put, in summary: There is no such thing as a state citizen that is not going to be considered a federal citizen.
-
fg_admin
AdministratorDecember 3, 2016 at 5:26 pm in reply to: Message 2, Why Does God Allow So Much Suffering and Evil:Postcript: Tim Keller answers the same question of why the suffering, and how this question is the very same question Satan himself asked Job in the Book of Job in the Bible
-
fg_admin
AdministratorDecember 3, 2016 at 5:17 pm in reply to: Irwin Schiff Died in Prison, Oct. 19, 2015SOURCE: http://www.schiffradio.com/death-of-a-patriot/
______________________
Death of a Patriot
My father Irwin A. Schiff was born Feb. 23rd 1928, the 8th child and only son of Jewish immigrants, who had crossed the Atlantic twenty years earlier in search of freedom. As a result of their hope and courage my father was fortunate to have been born into the freest nation in the history of the world. But when he passed away on Oct. 16th, 2015 at the age of 87, a political prisoner of that same nation, legally blind and shackled to a hospital bed in a guarded room in intensive care, the free nation he was born into had itself died years earlier.
My father had a life-long love affair with our nation’s founding principals and proudly served his country during the Korean War, for a while even having the less then honorable distinction of being the lowest ranking American soldier in Europe. While in college he became exposed to the principles of Austrian economics through the writings of Henry Hazlitt and Frederick Hayek. He first became active in politics during Barry Goldwater’s failed 1964 presidential bid. His activism intensified during the Vietnam Era when he led local grass root efforts to resist Yale University’s plans to conduct aid shipments to North Vietnam at a time when that nation was actively fighting U.S. forces in the south. Later in life he staged an unsuccessful write in campaign for governor of Connecticut, then eventually lost the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination to Harry Brown in 1996.
In 1976 his beliefs in free market economics, limited government, and strict interpretation of the Constitution led him to write his first book The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You, a blistering indictment of the post New Deal expansion of government in the United States. The book achieved accolades in the mainstream conservative world, receiving a stellar review in the Wall Street Journal, among other mainstream publications.
But my father was most known for his staunch opposition to the Federal Income Tax, for which the Federal Government labeled him a “tax protester.” But he had no objection to lawful, reasonable taxation. He was not an anarchist and believed that the state had an important, but limited role to play in market based economy. He opposed the Federal Government’s illegal and unconstitutional enforcement and collection of the income tax. His first book on this topic (he authored six books in total) How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes, published in 1982 became a New York Times best seller. His last, The Federal Mafia; How the Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully collects Income Taxes, the first of three editions published in 1992, became the only non-fiction, and second and last book to be banned in America. The only other book being Fanny Hill; Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, banned for obscenity in 1821 and 1963.
His crusade to force the government to obey the law earned him three prison sentences, the final one being a fourteen-year sentence that he began serving ten years ago, at the age of 77. That sentence turned into a life sentence, as my father failed to survive until his planned 2017 release date. However in actuality the life sentence amounted to a death sentence. My father died from skin cancer that went undiagnosed and untreated while he was in federal custody. The skin cancer then led to a virulent outbreak of lung cancer that took his life just more than two months after his initial diagnosis.
The unnecessarily cruel twist in his final years occurred seven years ago when he reached his 80th birthday. At that point the government moved him from an extremely low security federal prison camp in New York State where he was within easy driving distance from family and friends, to a federal correctional institute, first in Indiana and then in Texas. This was done specially to give him access to better medical care. The trade off was that my father was forced to live isolated from those who loved him. Given that visiting him required long flights, car rentals, and hotel stays, his visits were few and far between. Yet while at these supposed superior medical facilities, my father received virtually no medical care at all, not even for the cataracts that left him legally blind, until the skin cancer on his head had spread to just about every organ in his body.
At the time of his diagnosis in early August of this year, he was given four to six mouths to live. We tried to get him out of prison on compassionate release so that he could live out the final months of his life with his family, spending some precious moments with the grandchildren he had barely known. But he did not live long enough for the bureaucratic process to be completed. Two months after the process began, despite the combined help of a sitting Democratic U.S. congresswoman and a Republican U.S. senator, his petition was still sitting on someone’s desk waiting for yet another signature, even though everyone at the prison actually wanted him released. Even as my father lay dying in intensive care, a phone call came in from a lawyer and the Bureau of Prisons in Washington asking the prison medical representatives for more proof of the serious nature of my father’s condition.
As the cancer consumed him his voice changed, and the prison phone system no longer recognized it, so he could not even talk with family members on the phone during his finale month of life. When his condition deteriorated to the point where he needed to be hospitalized, government employees blindly following orders kept him shackled to his bed. This despite the fact that escape was impossible for an 87 year old terminally ill, legally blind patient who could barley breathe, let alone walk.
Whether or not you agree with my father’s views on the Federal Income Tax, or the manner by which it is collected, it’s hard to condone the way he was treated by our government. He held his convictions so sincerely and so passionately that he continued to espouse them until his dying breath. Like William Wallace in the final scene of Braveheart, an oppressive government may have succeeded in killing him, but they did not break his spirit. And that spirit will live on in his books, his videos, and in his children and grandchildren. Hopefully his legacy will one day help restore the lost freedoms he died trying to protect, finally allowing him to rest in peace.
-
fg_admin
AdministratorDecember 3, 2016 at 5:15 pm in reply to: Books Suggesting the Prevalence of RacketsWebsites Related to Alleged Rackets
- WikiLeaks — CollateralMurder — political, military, financial, etc. rackets
- 911Truth.org — 9/11 racket
- Edwin Black – The Cutting Edge News — political, military, academic, philanthropic, energy, and corporate rackets
- Noam Chomsky — political, military, and industrial rackets
- Adam Curtis – The Century of the Self; The Trap — What Happened to our Dream of Freedom — political, business, and advertising rackets
- Disinformation — political, banking, and economic rackets
- FDA Holocaust Museum — medical rackets
- Richard Gage – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth — 9/11 racket
- David Ray Griffin — 9/11 racket
- Michael Hodges – Grandfather Economic Report — political, economic, educational, and energy rackets
- David Icke — political, religious, economic, military, medical, UFO, journalism, and 9/11 rackets
- Alex Jones – InfoWars and PrisonPlanet — political, economic, environmental, and 9/11 rackets
- Loose Change 9/11 — 9/11 racket
- Dr. Joseph Mercola — medical rackets
- Gary Null — mostly health related; medical rackets
- Greg Palast — political, military, and economic rackets
- Ron Paul — political, military, and banking rackets
- John Perkins — political, corporate, banking, military, environmental, and economic rackets
- John Pilger — political, military, economic, and journalism rackets
- Pilots for 9/11 Truth — 9/11 racket
- Justin Raimondo – AntiWar.com — political, military, and 9/11 rackets
- Jeff Rense — medical, political, economic, banking, military, environmental, UFO, and 9/11 rackets
- Jon Rappoport – NoMoreFakeNews — political, industrial, medical, mind-control, conspiracy, and 9/11 rackets
- R.J. Rummel – Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War — politcal and military rackets
- Mike Ruppert — drug-war, political, energy, economic, and 9/11 rackets
- Aaron Russo – America: Freedom to Fascism — politcal, banking, economic, military, IRS, and 9/11 rackets
- Signs of the Times and The Signs Quick Guide — political, military, religious, new-age, economic, medical, environmental, drug-war, CIA/mind-control, and 9/11 rackets
- Sherman Skolnick — legal, military, and banking rackets
- Robert Sterling – The Konformist — underground news and conspiracies and rackets of all kinds
- Kevin Trudeau — political, economic, and medical rackets
- Zeitgeist Movement — political, banking, religious, and 9/11 rackets
-
Potential Game-Change Factors (PGCFs)
The “Cox strategy” featured in the Introduction, if implemented more widely, could become a Potential Game-Change Factor (PGCF).
Following is a chart computed by dividing the change in US GDP by the change in US Debt:
Nathan Martin describes it as “THE Most Important Chart of the CENTURY” and “the elephant in the room that nobody sees or can describe.” He also writes:
“What it shows is how much productivity is gained by infusing $1 of debt into our debt backed money system.
Back in the early 1960s a dollar of new debt added almost a dollar to the nation’s output of goods and services. As more debt enters the system the productivity gained by new debt diminishes. This produced a path that was following a diminishing line targeting ZERO in the year 2015. This meant that we could expect that each new dollar of debt added in the year 2015 would add NOTHING to our productivity.
Then a funny thing happened along the way. Macroeconomic DEBT SATURATION occurred causing a phase transition with our debt relationship. This is because total income can no longer support total debt. In the third quarter of 2009 each dollar of debt added produced NEGATIVE 15 cents of productivity, and at the end of 2009, each dollar of new debt now SUBTRACTS 45 cents from GDP!
This is mathematical PROOF that debt saturation has occurred. Continuing to add debt into a saturated system, where all money is debt, leads only to future defaults and to higher unemployment.”
You may want to Google “debt saturation” and form your own conclusions about the implications of the chart. If debt as a tool to increase economic production no longer works, or works far less well than it used to, this could be a PGCF.
Next, you may want to check out the Grandfather Economic Report by Michael Hodges.
The so-called “soviet union” collapsed because of PGCFs. Could the same happen to the “american empire?”
Juan Enriquez says some important things about the prospect of hyperinflation wiping out the “US$.” According to Roger Gallo, “Juan Enriquez implies that there will soon be a new species of humanoid.”
Roger Gallo has published Harry Browne’s Freedom Principles By Frederick Mann. Studying and implementing such principles could constitute a PCCF at the individual level.
Roger Gallo has also written an article “TED – Reduce The Role Of Goverment,” featuring a video by UK politician David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party: “The next age of government.” To watch the video on YouTube, Click Here.
While Cameron says some important things about debt and transparency, and it may be expedient for some freedom activists and even FreeWeavers to support the likes of Cameron, some issues may be important:
- Should he be denounced as a GPP (gangster political predator)?
- Should he be regarded as a member of “gangs of murderers, plunderers and thieves, surrounded by willing executioners, propagandists, sycophants, crooks, liars, clowns, charlatans, dupes and useful idiots?” — seeIntroduction.
- If his pay is effectively collected at the point of a gun in the form of taxes, what are the implications? If his victims refuse to pay these taxes, will they be fined, jailed, and/or murdered?
- He presents a “civilized veneer.” By not also disclosing the real (mafia-like) nature of his “business,” is he guilty of misrepresentation and deception?
- To Cameron, can “power to people” be regarded as “power granted by him and his fellow GPPs?”
- “Human nature” is most important — practically all humans have in their brains a “Pecking Order Bully System” (POBS) program — see Civilization. This is a major reason why civilons readily accept the likes of bullies like Cameron as their “masters,” rather than rejecting them as “the scum of the earth.”
- His “post-bureaucratic age” with “people control” seems like pure BS. It seems similar to a lion claiming that it has decided to stop killing and eating its prey.
- JFK’s “noble sentiment” quote is typical of how GPPs dupe their victims.
- Comment on YouTube by globalbankfraud: “He’ll say anything just to get votes but won’t keep his promises. He backed down over the Lisbon Treaty. These guys are just Theatre Puppets who sell us short to Big Business. As soon as they get elected they start making things easy for their sponsors. Tony Blair getting £2 Million per year from JP Morgan, Barack Obama employing Wall St Lobbyists after they paid for his campaign. The whole con game is rife.”
During April, 2010, Michele Bachmann (so-called “republican representative of Minnesota”) used the term “gangster government.” Bill Clinton objected to this with the phrase “elected officials,” implying that because certain people were “elected” they were not gangsters. Questions:
- On the same grounds as Cameron above, should Bachmann and Clinton be regarded as GPPs?
- If a mafia leader is “elected,” does this make him or her a “non-gangster?”
- If children are forced into “schools” where they’re subjected to political brainwashing, can their subsequent “political votes” be regarded as having any validity?
- To the extent that freedom activists fail to expose the likes of Cameron, Bachmann, Clinton, and Obama as gangsters, are they traitors to their own cause?
In many parts of the world, children are forced into so-called “schools” where they’re brainwashed and conditioned to become “government slaves.” If the methodology or technology could be developed to enable them to free themselves from political brainwashing, this would be a PGCF.
Part of “human nature” can be regarded as a “Primitive Political Animal Mentality” (PPAM). Part of PPAM is the “Pecking Order Bully System” (POBS) program referred to above. If the methodology or technology could be developed to enable humans to transcend their PPAM, this would be a PGCF.
The book Why We Lie: The Evolutionary Roots of Deception and the Unconscious Mind by David Livingston Smith reveals important aspects of “human nature.” The likes of Cameron and Obama may be oblivious to most of their own lies. Most humans are duped by the lies of Cameron and Obama — most likely including author Smith himself! This gullibility is part of PPAM. If the methodology or technology could be developed to enable humans to recognize the lies of the likes of Cameron and Obama, this would be a PGCF.
Consider a hypothetical world in which people in corporations didn’t steal money from their employees (“tax withholding”) on behalf of GPPs, and didn’t snitch on their employees by sending “earnings reports” to GPPs. In such a world it would be more difficult and expensive for GPPs to steal (“collect taxes”). If GPPs could persuade or compel people in corporations to steal on their behalf and snitch on their employees, would this be a PGCF for GPPs?
If large numbers (not limited to freedom activists and FreeWeavers) could earn a living in ways not subject to “corporate theft on behalf of GPPs,” would this be a PGCF? Consider ProfitClicking!
If freedom activists and FreeWeavers were to focus on identifying PGCFs and acting on the most promising ones… (Open Question?)
If enough people (sheeple?) could find out that they’re effectively being farmed like livestock by GPPs (and often by plutonomists) — see Stefan Molyneux’s The Story of Your Enslavement — would this be a PGCF?
-
fg_admin
AdministratorDecember 3, 2016 at 5:06 pm in reply to: Prison phone companies fight for right to charge inmates $14 a minuteFrom a member who visited a prison. He says the above article is true:
Re: Prison phone robbery squads. It’s true. They charge a connect fee of around $5 and then an outrageous sum per minute. On one call, you might get dropped 3 times…so each time you call back its another $5 connect fee. Coincidence? I say hardly. One time I visited the local county jail and the company was “fixing” the prison pay phone. The jailer was telling the phone tech guy he needed to get it fixed before the next time for prisoners to use the phone cause “they were loosing a lot of money.” So I asked the jailer if the prison got the money and he said no. He said it was this money: If the inmates make enough charges, the phone company gives the entire jail free phone service for that month. So in essence the prison families are paying for the government phones.
-
How To: Disable Telemetry and data collection in Windows 10
http://www.filecluster.com/howto/disable-telemetry-data-collection-windows-10-13511/
-
Here is an animation that makes the above process real for the visually oriented:
-
UNALIENABLE applies to constitutional law and common law. INALIENABLE applies to statutory civil law.
The Declaration of Independence uses “UNALIENABLE:
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/
INALIENABLE. This word is applied to those things, the property of which
cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways
and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are
inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech.
http://famguardian.org/Publications/Bouviers/bouvieri.txtUNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their
nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of
particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as
pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty
are unalienable.
http://famguardian.org/Publications/Bouviers/bouvieru.txt -
fg_admin
AdministratorDecember 3, 2016 at 4:29 pm in reply to: Definitions by corporate Federal “State” for “in the state”, “in this state”, “iTexas TAX CODE: TITLE 2; SUBTITLE E; CHAPTER 151; SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS;
Sec. 151.004. “IN THIS STATE”. “In this state” means within the exterior limits of Texas and includes all territory within these limits ceded to or owned by the United States.
Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 1545, ch. 389, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982. -
fg_admin
AdministratorDecember 3, 2016 at 4:08 pm in reply to: The Most Important Chart of the Century?See also:
Is This Debt-Saturation Chart The Scariest Chart Of All Time?
Joe Weisenthalhttp://www.businessinsider.com/diminishing-marginal-producitivity-of-debt-2010-3
-
fg_admin
AdministratorDecember 3, 2016 at 4:07 pm in reply to: The Most Important Chart of the Century?See also:
Law Of Diminishing Marginal Productivity
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-diminishing-marginal-productivity.asp