fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Dear truth_seeker,
Thank you for pointing out that the page in question was out of date. We updated it to reflect that Acrobat 7.0 or later is required. The latest version of Adobe Acrobat is 9.1, so the last three versions still work and this covers the last five years of updates of the application.
If your machine is more than five years old, then you need to upgrade, because too many features would be inoperative in the PDF that we currently employ if we downgraded the 7.0 format we currently use to Acrobat 5.0 in order to be compatible with older systems. Therefore, please upgrade using the free application available at:
If you can't upgrade your computer to the latest because it isn't compatible with your operating system, then upgrade your operating system first. If none of that is possible, then take the PDF to Kinkos on a USB flash disk and have them produce the book directly in print format as instructed on the cover page of the book.
Based on the demographics and computer capabilities of those who visit this website, you are part of a very small minority of users less than 2% in size who are running on such old hardware/software. We can't and won't allow such a small minority of users to establish archaic file formats long out of use as the lowest common denominator for this site, and it is far too labor intensive to produce multiple versions of such a very large book and PDF for users with older computers and software, given such a small audience.
Sorry.
-
EDITORIAL: Below the line is Larry Becraft's response to the above:
____________________________________________
I address the money issue in this file:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/MONEYbrief.html
On the above page, I explain HJR 192 (there is a link to it) as follows:
By June 1, 1933, a Congressional Joint Resolution, number 192, was proposed to make it against public policy to pay any obligation in gold. It was during the debate on this resolution that the fact was made known that the Federal Reserve Banks possessed virtually all the federal gold clause bonds to mature within the next 6 months. [12] This resolution was enacted on June 5, 1933, and notwithstanding the fact that it was only a joint resolution, it was accorded the force of law. On August 28, 1933, Roosevelt issued another Executive Order which required information returns for gold ownership and prohibited possession of gold except by license. Failure to file the required returns and possession of gold without license were made criminal offenses. All the fervent work by Roosevelt to outlaw gold and make the federal government the biggest “hoarder” of gold put American currency on the light, inconvertible currency standard. Such a standard was deemed “modern” like the architecture of the 1930s and the “boat tail” Duesenbergs, Auburns, and Cords. [13] The final piece of legislation secured by Roosevelt in his war upon gold ownership by American citizens was the Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934, 48 Stat. 337. In the tradition used to obtain the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, this legislation was likewise railroaded through Congress. Throughout this period, Roosevelt and Congress used an alleged “national emergency” as the predicate for the hasty legislation and orders so issued.
As a direct and proximate result of the far reaching changes made in monetary law in 1933 and 1934, litigation on these points arose. The 3 major Supreme Court decisions made as a consequence were Norman v. Baltimore and O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407 (1935), Nortz v. United States, 294 U.S. 317, 55 S.Ct. 428 (1935), and Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 55 S.Ct. 432 (1935). Norman, supra, dealt with a railroad bond payable in gold coin; Norman sought payment of $38.10 on a bond payable in the amount of $22.50, his basis for asking for more arising from the change made in the statutory gold dollar. Seeing the inherent justice in denying relief to a person seeking more than he was entitled, the Supreme Court in Norman denied the relief sought. In Nortz, a plaintiff seeking similar relief got similar judgment as Norman. Nortz had $106,300 in gold certificates and was forced to exchange the same for inconvertible currency of the light standard. Based upon a higher market value of gold than legal value of the same, Nortz instituted suit to recover $64,334.07, the alleged difference between the market price of gold and the legal price. The Court denied his request for unjust enrichment. In Perry, the issue concerned a federal gold bond and the method of its payment in light of the June 5, 1933, Joint Resolution. Although the Court in Perry held the Joint Resolution to be unconstitutional insofar as it applied to federal bonds, it ultimately determined that Perry had neither alleged nor proven any damage in his breach of contract action and was therefore not entitled to any. In this trilogy of cases, all parties were seeking a gain or benefit as a result of the monetary changes caused by the President and Congress. The Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, has no significance today because it has been effectively repealed; see 91 Stat. 1229. For cases explaining the end of HJR 192's application in 1977, and the validity of gold clause contracts today, see Fay Corp. v. BAT Holdings I, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 946 (W.D.Wash. 1986), affirmed at Fay Corp. v. Frederick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1990), Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America, 32 Cal.App.4th 424, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 521 (1995); Trostel v. American Life & Casualty Insurance Company, 133 F.3d 679 (8th Cir. 1998); Nebel, Inc. v. Mid-City National Bank, 329 Ill. App.3d 957, 769 N.E.2d 45 (2002); and 216 Jamaica Ave. v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co., 540 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2008).
-
EDITORIAL: Here is how one person responded to Larry Becraft's statement above.
This guy is full of BS. 48 Stat. 112 was repealed when Title 31 of the U.S. Code was enacted into positive law. This is revealed in:
The Money Scam, Form #05.041
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf
See section 6.8 of the above for the proof that 48 Stat. 112 AND HJR-192 have both been repealed.
___________________________
Was HJR-192 Repealed ?
http://www.tapesite.com/index17.html
An Analysis of the Facts, by: Kevin, of the family: Hines
“Was HJR-192 repealed?” I can't even count the number of times I've had gullible sovereigns asked me this question. They have blindly believed this patriot mythology without thinking it through. That's the problem: sovereigns who are too lazy to do any research or think through a rumor thoroughly before blindly believing anything they hear or read. Stop watching the NFL games on Sunday and start thinking things through!!!
First of all, “HJR-192” is the short name for “House Joint Resolution 192”, so let's understand what a “resolution” is. A New Year's resolution applies to you, the one who made it, not to your next door neighbor or anyone else. You're the one who “resolved” to lose weight or quit smoking or exercise more, and your neighbor is not obligated to do what you resolved for yourself. “HJR-192” is strictly a resolution that applies only to the members of Congress (who “resolved” it) and to its subjects. It can be modified at anytime by Congress if they so choose, just as you can modify your New Year's resolution if you so choose.
However, modifying a Public Law is a little different matter. The law in this instance, per the actual “Statutes at Large” books, is identified as: “Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112”. I went down to the SMU Law Library, found it, and photo-copied it for myself. It contains the very same wording as “HJR-192”; however, one is a resolution and one is a Public Law.
Kevin's Rule #4 – “Always do your own homework. Verify everything. Discern fact from error, truth from lies. Never act based on someone else's claims!!”
If I refer to “HJR-192”, am I not telling the listener or reader that I am a subject of Congress, and that I am a citizen of the UNITED STATES?? Sorry, but that is the last thing I want to say. I can, however, say that the Federal Government has placed insufficient amounts of lawful money in general circulation, i.e., gold and silver coinage, thus, forcing me to “discharge” my debts with commercial paper, i.e., putting them off to a future point in time, and restricting my obligation as a sovereign to “pay” a debt.
I refer to the Federal Government's obligation to me as: “Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112”, not “HJR-192”. The Federal Government took away my ability to pay a debt with lawful money, but that doesn't make me a subject of Congress or of the Federal Government, and thus, their resolution does not apply to me. However, their obligation to me under their Public Law does apply to me because there is insufficient lawful money in general circulation to meet the needs of the people, which includes me.
When the Federal Government took much of our lawful money out of general circulation in 1933, i.e., gold coins, thus leaving an insufficient amount of lawful money in general circulation to meet the needs of the people, i.e., only silver coins remaining, the Congress was required to give the people a remedy. Public Law: “Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112” is that remedy. It states that the Federal Government will pay my debts, dollar for dollar. Note: It doesn't say that the government will pay for anything I desire to buy (like a car), only that it will pay my legitimate debts.
Most, if not all, of the State Constitutions require the State to pay its debts in gold and silver coin. By taking away a State Government's ability to comply with it's Constitutional mandate of paying its debts in gold and silver coin, the Federal Government involuntarily restricted a State Government's ability to function in a de jure capacity. The de jure States went into suspension after the following four acts were committed: (1) the taking of gold coins out of general circulation in 1933, (2) in 1964, the U. S. Mint ceased minting any more silver coins, (3) in 1968, Silver Certificates could no longer be redeemed for silver, and (4) on August 15, 1971, President Nixon closed the Gold Window, thus stopping the redemption of foreign-held dollars for gold. At that point in time, the U. S. Dollar was backed solely by the full faith and credit of the American people, and the States could no longer function in a de jure capacity while in a state of suspension.
The States went into suspension because the Federal Government involuntarily forced the State to pay its officers, judges, employees, etc. with something other than gold and silver coin, which was required by the State Constitution. This “something other than gold and silver coin” was nothing more than “fiat” money, or script, back by nothing but the labor of the people. Thus, Constitutionally, the States could no longer function in a de jure capacity because it no longer had the ability to pay its debts in the form mandated by its Constitution, i.e., contract with the people.
Since the Federal Government took away the gold coin money in 1933, thus causing the States to suspend operations by preventing them from honoring their obligation to pay their debts in gold and silver coin, then there had to be a remedy. “Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112” is the remedy, not just for the States, but also for the sovereign men and women who created the States. Until gold and silver coinage is reinstated in sufficient quantities for general circulation, that remedy cannot be repealed. Congress may have repealed some parts of “HJR-192”, or even all of it, because “HJR-192” is merely a resolution for Congress and its subjects. However, the true remedy is provided to the people by Public Law: “Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112”.
Until the State Governments come out of suspension, by the Federal Government's placing sufficient quantities of lawful money into general circulation, your remedy, pursuant to “Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112” cannot be repealed and will continue to be there. The remedy of the subjects/citizens found at “HJR-192” might not be there because their remedy is nothing but a resolution, but the remedy of the sovereign found at Public Law: “Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112” will still be there because a sovereign's remedy is Public Law.
If, as many uninformed sovereigns claim, the promise that the Federal Government will pay your debts, dollar for dollar, is no longer valid, then these sovereigns have no basis for claiming their remedy by using the 1099-OID process for the refund of out-of pocket funds expended to pay their debts. Either (1) you believe that the Federal Government repealed your remedy, and therefore, there is no 1099-OID refund process available to you, or (2) you believe the Government has an obligation to pay your debts, dollar for dollar, and therefore, the 1099-OID process for a refund is your remedy and you can use it to recover the funds you expended to take care of your debt obligations. You can't believe your remedy has been repealed, and then try to claim your remedy by asking for a refund using the 1099-OID process.
Now that you understand the difference between a resolution and a Public Law (and why your remedy was given to you), you may recall how a well-known “patriot attorney” who specializes in tax matters has worked hard to intentionally mislead sovereign men and women into believing that their remedy has been repealed. HOGWASH!!! He's talking about a subject's remedy by resolution, not a sovereign's remedy by Public Law. Please do your homework and think outside the box before disseminating patriot mythology to others, possibly causing them to stumble by your lack of research and knowledge. If you wish to continue arguing this ridiculous allegation without doing your homework, i.e., refusing to spend the time required in studying the monetary system in detail, please do so privately, not on any public forum, so as not to mislead others with such mythology.
-
EDITORIAL: From third party, not us
__________________________________
Jeff has requested that we distribute his most recent Bill Benson case update to those who receive our mailings and to seek your help on this most important “rights issue” project.
On behalf of all of us, I ask you to please support Jeff's and Bill's efforts.
{if for any reason you do not wish to receive these mailings, just hit reply, enter the word “remove” and it will be done, no questions asked.}
From: Jeffrey A. Dickstein
To: Bill Benson
Cc: Larry Becraft
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:56 AM
Subject: BENSON UPDATE – ANOTHER VICTORY – Help Needed
Please distribute to your mailing list
Yesterday the federal district court in Chicago dismissed the summons enforcement case brought by the IRS to obtain the names and addresses of those who obtained the information provided by Bill Benson regarding the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment. A copy of the order of dismissal is attached. (copied and pasted below)
When the IRS failed to obtain an order in the injunction case to obtain the so called “customer list” of Bill Benson, they served Bill with an IRS administrative summons to obtain the same information. Bill responded by claiming his rights under the First and Fifth Amendments. The government followed up with a summons enforcement action. Yesterday, the court dismissed the case.
Bill and I want to thank each of you who have made a donation to allow the continued efforts to preserve our First and Fifth Amendments. The petition for writ of certiorari has just been proof read by a professional proof reader, and the final version ready for filing with the Supreme Court is expected to be ready later today. As soon as it is received, it will be posted at http://jeffdickstein.com/supreme.aspx. We plan to file the petition with the Supreme Court on October 16th. Your donations provided the funds for the printing of the petition and the filing fee. (the final pre-filing draft of the Petition is posted at this site now. -bob)
Once we receive the final formatted version of the petition for writ of cert, we will be contacting numerous First Amendment groups to solicit the filing of amicus briefs with the Supreme Court to improve our chances of obtaining certiorari. A couple of you provided the contact information for such groups, and we thank you.
On the day we file the petition with the Supreme Court we will be sending out an Action Alert e-mail asking you to send it to everyone in your address book, and to post it on blogs and everywhere else on the Internet you can. The goal is to have as many people as possible read the Action Alert and to click on the link to the website where people can easily send letters to newspapers, tv and radio stations, as well as to Congress.
The original plan was to commission a Capwiz site for this purpose. We fell way short of sufficient funds for the commission, but did receive enough funds to hire someone to build a website with similar functionality. We have also hired a professional courtroom artist to provide artwork for the site. Several of you provided comments, suggestions and criticism of the website design, and we thank you for that input.
HELP NEEDED. The following link contain the names of numerous Tea Party groups.
http://912dc.org/about/event-coordinators/
We need people to collect the numerous e-mail addresses and to send out the Action Alert at the appropriate time. For example, at http://www.teapartypatriots.org/ there is a list of groups from each of the 50 States, and if you click on a state, there are several people listed. Each person listed should receive a copy of the Action Alert e-mail for distribution to their contacts. If you can help collect the e-mail addresses and/or are willing to send out the Action Alerts, please let me know and I will coordinate the effort, unless one or more of you will take on the responsibility to coordinate the effort. There is only so much time and I am pretty well tied up with the larger scale planning and implementation. We really need your help here!!
I have drafted a petition for writ of mandamus to be filed in the 11th Circuit asking them to order the district court judge to rule on the issues of the 16th Amendment in a criminal case in Florida. I represent two of 13 defendants there. Just as in the Benson case, the district court failed to address the issues raised. I expect the 11th Circuit to refuse to issue the mandamus, and then we can take that denial to the Supreme Court, so there will be two cases on the same subject matter, one civil and one criminal. I am waiting to file the petition for writ of mandamus to obtain optimal timing with the filing of Benson's petition for writ of cert.
We would also like to send out PR releases, but that will take more donations. http://jeffdickstein.com/donate.aspx.
We are also, thanks to the help of a couple of people, designing a bumper sticker and t-shirt campaign to bring publicity to the lawsuit and to expand grassroots awareness.
Once again, Bill Benson and I want to thank you for all of your effort to date. Lets keep the momentum going.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208
Fox Point, WI 53217
(414) 446-4264
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division
United States of America
Plaintiff, Case No.: 1:08−cv−04855
v. Honorable David H. Coar
William J Benson
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, September 28, 2009:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable David H. Coar: Status hearing held on 9/28/2009. Attorney for Benson appeared by telephone and no one on behalf of the USA appeared,. The Court having reviewed the status report, this action is dismissed. Any pending motions, deadlines or dates are stricken and terminated. Civil case terminated in its entirety.Mailed notice(pm, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49© of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Case 1:08-cv-04855 Document 25 Filed 09/28/2009 Page 1 of 1
-
Neo,
Thanks for the effort on the diagram. That's a very nice start. It seems way too complicated and busy with the extra small circles, though. Citizenship under Title 8 needs to be treated separately from tax liability under Title 26. We don't want to overwhelm readers who are taking a first look at citizenship, nor throw in the tax issue with it. We would also appreciate you posting the editable document so people can reuse it.
To simplify, please separate into TWO diagrams: One for Title 8 and one for Title 26. And also explain what the hell those small circles are. I don't have a clue. An engineer like you might understand that, but a joe sixpack couch potato is going to get glassy eyed, which is the majority of Americans.
As far as suggesting Rule 17(b)(3)(A) as the origin of jurisdiction over SS, that can't be it within a state of the Union, because rights are “unalienable”, which by definition means they can't partner with anyone protected by the Constitution to give away rights. Only private businesses can therefore do that, and government isn't a private business. It's a breach of fiduciary duty under the constitution to be a government established to protect private rights, and at the same time make a business/franchise out of destroying and taxing the exercise of private rights that you are supposed to be protecting.
Quote:“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -“[Declaration of Independence]
“Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.“
[Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693]
Only those with a domicile on federal territory who have no rights to protect or “alienate” and who are therefore statutory “citizens” and “residents” CAN lawfully be party to such a contract or partnership that could come before a federal court. Otherwise, the notion of “inalienable rights” under the Declaration of Independence is meaningliness. That's why SS is only available to such people under 20 CFR 422.104 and why the definition of “State” within the SS act DOES NOT include states of the Union. You as a state-domiciled American non-citizen national have to commit perjury under penalty of perjury on a government form in describing your citizenship and domicile to even be party to such a fraudulent franchise contract to begin with. See:
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2291
God says you can't contract with the Beast, and the government is definitely the beast, complete with the Mark of the Beast, the slave surveillance number:
Quote:“Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers [the heathens], nor observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their [pagan government] idols. I am the LORD your God: Walk in [url url=”http://Litigation/Reference/LawsOfTheBible.pdf”]My statutes[/url], keep My judgments, and do them; hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.”[Ezekial 20:10-20, Bible, NKJV]
_________________________________________
“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs [url url=”http://Forms/MemLaw/Domicile.pdf”]by becoming a “resident” in the process of contracting with them[/url]], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their gods [under [url url=”http://Forms/MemLaw/Franchises.pdf”]contract or agreement or franchise[/url]], it will surely be a snare to you.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]
Why do you keep trying to defend violations of God's laws and participating in things the Bible clearly says you can't do, including “sharing one purse”, which is the “government purse”, or simply the BEAST'S purse, as a plunder recipient?
Quote:Avoid Bad Company“My son, if sinners [socialists, in this case] entice you,
Do not consent
If they say, “Come with us,
Let us lie in wait to shed blood;
Let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause;
Let us swallow them alive like Sheol,
And whole, like those who go down to the Pit:
We shall fill our houses with spoil [plunder];
Cast in your lot among us,
Let us all have one purse”–
My son, do not walk in the way with them,
Keep your foot from their path;
For their feet run to evil,
And they make haste to shed blood.
Surely, in vain the net is spread
In the sight of any bird;
But they lie in wait for their own blood.
They lurk secretly for their own lives.
So are the ways of everyone who is greedy for gain;
It takes away the life of its owners.”
[Proverbs 1:10-19, Bible, NKJV]
What do you think of the changes we made to our citizenship materials based on this thread?
-
Stija,
Thanks for pointing that out. The article has been updated and corrected. Check it again. That article was old. We have learned a lot since it was written.
-
Nai,
Don't you get it? The Resignation document provides all the forms and procedures right from their own manual showing how to quit. They MUST accept the form and if they don't, everything beyond that point is a nullity. They were demanded to produce a basis IN LAW for rejection and they didn't. Therefore, what they gave you was a POLICY response not authorized by law. Now you have standing to SUE THEM to process the resignation and you have proof that you sent it admissible in court.
The result of not accepting it is that you are victimized by involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, and to commit the crime of impersonating a public officer in violation of 18 USC 912 by continuing to be forced to use a number that doesn't belong to you based on the government's own regulations at 20 CFR 422.103(d).
Didn't you read the Resignation document? There is lots of things you can sue them for. Don't kid yourself, they aren't going to make this easy but the law and their own forms REQUIRE that they terminate the fraudulent and unlawful participation.
We are working on a lawsuit for those who get the rejection letter, which isn't everyone. Send us your lawsuit if you finish before us. Don't give up. You've got standing to sue now.
Aren't you going to write them back and remind them that you DEMAND the kind of response indicated in the letter, and that their failure to rebut the information means they agree with it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8( 😎 (6)? Send them a letter of default and tell them you will sue them if they discriminate against you by refusing to process the form SSA-521 or at least tell you what you have to fix so that they will process it.
You may also want to try it with a witness at the local office. Then have the witness fill out the following form and use it to sue the clerk who rejected it. Since it is a local clerk, you can sue them in state court under the common law for a tort.
Denial of Application and Discrimination Affidavit, Form #06.004
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/Denia…ication-SSN.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
-
Here is the latest update from Attorney Jeffrey Dickstein on the Bill Benson. 1st and 16th Amendment case, now going to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Jeff and Bill are asking for our help in this epic battle. Also enclosed is a link to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and a link to
Devvy Kidd's most recent article on the Benson case.
Original Message
From: Jeffrey A. Dickstein
To: Bill Benson
Cc: Support Intexx
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:54 PM
Subject: BENSON UPDATE – THE BENSON TEA PARTY – TAKE BACK AMERICA
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO YOUR MAILING LISTS
The Bill Benson petition for writ of certiorari to be filed with the Supreme Court has been sent to the printer. Three complete re-writes and over fifty revisions has resulted in, what we believe, is a final product written for both the judges of the Supreme Court and We The People. You can see it here: http://jeffdickstein.com/supreme.aspx.
The public support plan to apply political pressure so the Supreme Court will hear Bill Benson's petition, is to have as many people as possible e-mail a short letter to everyone on your mailing list. We will provide that letter. We will also need blogs and you-tube videos to get the message out. That effort will result in people clicking a link in the e-mail.
The following is the purpose of clicking on that link: To allow people to enter their name and address, choose one of 5 pre-written documents to send, or create their own, and have them either e-mailed or faxed to 5 tv stations, 5 newspapers, the Supreme Court, their Congressmen, the President and the Secretary of the Treasury. This process should take less than a minute, be easy, be free, and be safe. The e-mail addresses of these people should be collected so we have the capability to send them updates and action alerts.
This is a design I have come up with for the page: Click on url
Page opens with an ivory parchment, a bottle of ink entitled “We The People” and a quill.
The quill dips in the ink bottle, then writes across the parchment with large letters filled in with red, white and blue colors” THE BENSON TEA PARTY.
The size of the parchment shrinks on the screen and underneath the parchment, in very small letters are the words: TAKE BACK AMERICA. A cloud starts to form above and to the right of these words, a lightening bolt comes from the cloud and hits the words, causing them to become a little larger. This continues as the cloud forms into a picture of the Constitution with the words “We The People” highlighted, and the words TAKE BACK AMERICA are as large as we want them.
As this point a link appears that says something like “Graphical Presentation of the Issue” and flashes while the rest of the main page loads.
The “graphical presentation” page is as follows. (I'm thinking of an automated power point presentation, or cartoon video or something similar.)
The First Slide says:
How justice is EXECUTED in America.
2nd slide:
A cartoon/drawing of a judge sitting behind his bench in a courtroom. (On the wall behind him is the symbol for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Instead of being dressed like a judge, he is dressed like an executioner, complete with his head covered, he is hairy chested, and yielding an ax.
The judge says: “Next”
3rd slide.
Average person with the word “You” hanging from a neck chain which is a shackle. The Judge says “You are charged with telling the people information about the government that we don't want the people to know.”
4th slide.
Average person says, holding the Constitution, “But the First Amendment says you can't censor my speech about you violating the law. The people have the right to know.”
5th Slide
Judge says, “F^&! the First Amendment.”
At this point the corner of the flag behind the judge ignites in fire.
6th Slide
Average guy says: “Besides which, I'm not lying, here's the proof.” Holding a document that has a gold seal and ribbon on it. An arrow is pointing to the picture that says: “Certified Government Document”
7th Slide
Judge says, “F^&! your evidence.” Fire on flag expands, scales of justice burst into flames
8th Slide
Average guy says, again holding up the Constitution: “But the Fifth Amendment says you have to look at my evidence.”
9th Slide
Judge says, “F^&! the Fifth Amendment.” Same expanding graphics.
10th Slide:
Average guy says “But my lawyer says you can't do that.”
11th Slide:
Judge says: “F^&! your lawyer and your damn laws. You are guilty as charged.” Etc. on graphics
12th Slide:
Average Joe with head on a chopping block, and the Judge cutting his head off. The head is falling, or will fall, into a government pork barrel.
As far as the page that sends the e-mail, I cannot stress enough how cool the capwiz people have that set up. See here:
http://capwiz.com/protectseniors/issues/al…lertid=11690896
They also advise “There is a limit per person of 5 emails to the newspapers at a time. We've done this because it has caused problems with the newspapers and proven ineffective to have people send to every single paper as the papers quickly catch on and will not publish many of the letters. There is an option to include national media (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.) if you choose to do so, but they would still be limited at 5 newspapers/radio/tv stations per action.
Chief web designer and engineer will be Jeff Bowman, who has in the past gracefully donated his time and skills to building and maintaining my website: http://jeffdickstein.com. Assuming you, or anyone you know, can help with the design/programming of The Benson Tea Party website, please coordinate your efforts with Jeff. His e-mail address is support@intexx.com
If any of you can assist in any part of this programming, or know someone who can, please get in touch. Efforts to raise funds for website develop did not fare well; so we have to do it ourselves, and we only have about two weeks. I know there are some really talented people out there. Please help.
TAKE BACK AMERICA
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208
Fox Point, WI 53217
(414) 446-4264
More news!
9/21-2009 article about the Bill Benson case from
News with Views author Devvy Kidd.
-
On this subject, please also see:
“Weird” Al Yankovic – Amish Paradise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrowbOGZJwg…feature=channel
Hilarious!
-
Neo,
1. I have a problem with that last statement:
Quote:I don't see any way around this conclusion. All of these conclusions are predicated on the fact that a Union state Citizen is in fact a statutory “alien.” The question is, is he a “resident alien,” or a “nonresident alien,” OR has either one of these “aliens,” resident or nonresident, been granted the privilege to work in the United States** Government? That is why there is a W-8ECI. This form is for those “nonresident aliens” who are domiciled outside of the United States** but are connected with the “trade or business” franchise. This too proves, I believe, that ANY payment from the United States**, such as a military retirement, constitutes “income” from “sources within the United States**” for a “nonresident alien,” and I believe is “income” which then becomes “not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business” once said “nonresident alien” retires, and is no longer actively connected with the “trade or business.” That retiree then just becomes a “beneficial owner” of “United States** sourced income” and would be taxed at the 30% rate. Social Security payments are also addressed as “income which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business.” 85% of these payments would be taxed at 30% as well. I have no problem meeting this lawful obligation after serving the United States** in the interest of the people and the Union states for many, many years.You contradicted yourself. First you say that the military retirement is a payment from “sources in the United States” that is not connected to a “trade or business”, and yet 26 USC 864(c )(3) says all payments from “sources in the United States” are all associated with a “trade or business”. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
Quote:26 USC 864(c )(3) Other income from sources within United States All income, gain, or loss from sources within the United States (other than income, gain, or loss to which paragraph (2) applies) shall be treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.
SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…64—-000-.html
2. Social Security is a franchise that operates within states if it acts upon or creates “persons” within states of the Union. The number functions essentially as a de facto license number to act as a public officer. Otherwise, they couldn't enforce any of its provisions against the participants and the only thing they could regulate is the payment itself. Anything that acts on the person, obligates the person, functions as a contract, and conveys a “benefit” is a franchise. That's ridiculous.
All franchises are implemented as civil law and all civil law attaches to the domicile/residence of the parties. Changing one's domicile is all that should be required to destroy the franchise relationship and those domiciled in a state do not have the required domicile. This is NOT private law like a McDonald's franchise. The government can't operate that way. All their franchises are implemented with civil law that has domicile as a prerequisite.
-
Franklin,
Thanks for keeping all that negative energy focused on something constructive that can help everyone defend themselves from the thugs in the District of Criminals. And YES, we would post such materials developed by members.
-
Neo,
This forum software supports attachments. Whenever you add a post at the bottom, there is a “Browse” and “UPLOAD” button that allows you to post the attachment. Previous posts in this thread demonstrate how this works. Simply post the Microsoft Word or Powerpoint file that contains your diagram or table as an attachment and all those who have that application can click on it and view it. They can't look at it directly as a bitmap or a PDF from their browser, but they can still view it if they have those applications installed on their system. We will convert it to PDF and add the PDF version to the attachment you provide so everyone who has the free Adobe PDF reader can also view it. Alternatively, you can attach the PDF also, but only if you have PDF production software installed on your system. Most people don't, but only have the free reader.
It appears to us that you are pushing so hard on “nationals” being aliens because of the following interchange, and the problems it creates for you to receive plunder as a public officer without committing perjury on a government form by describing yourself as an “alien” and a “taxpayer”, and yet also being a “U.S. citizen” as an officer in the military. If you hadn't been pursuing this for selfish reasons, you likely would be getting more help than you have so far. Keep in mind that these forums are motivated by a desire to glorify and obey God as His fiduciary and steward under the Bible trust indenture, and not to benefit oneself personally or financially:
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2200
On a different note, it really can be tiring playing nanny to 240,000 visitors a month to Family Guardian. We in this ministry such as Author #2's posts reflect perhaps a bit of exasperation that more people don't take ownership over helping us all converge on the truth, and would rather sit back in the peanut gallery and take pot shots than roll up their sleeves and help resolve the riddle facing us all by organizing the chaos with new research such as what we provide. We're not supermen and we can't always do it all. We really do need help once in a while. These forums are supposed to be the vehicle for requesting and receiving that help not only for us, but for all those who are interested in the truth. Please don't take the exasperation personally. 🙄
We are beginning to understand first hand how exasperated God must have felt when:
1. He rescued the Israelites from the Egyptians, and had to give them free manna every day on the ground (feed them milk) for 40 YEARS (!) until the old guard socialists who lived under Pharoah died off and a new generation of obedient and faithful (Joshua) grew up to seek the promised land. Seems like the only thing people want these days is milk and they aren't interested in REAL, spiritual and legal “meat” or “steak”.
2. He warned the Israelites not to elect a King, and yet they insisted on doing so in order to avoid responsibility for governing themselves. God's response was a curse. See 1 Samuel.
We're excited about viewing your diagrams and tables. Your contributions have been very helpful so far, and especially the venn diagram. That thing is EVERYWHERE now and is very helpful to visual learners, which is probably 70% of the populace. See:
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3112
Your rendition of the diagram needed a little work, but iron definitely sharpened iron with that. That diagram organizes a lot of learning into a very simple and elegant presentation. We have already improved what is posted and the next version will be even better.
Thanks.
-
Neo,
Thanks for that feedback.
You didn't, however, answer the questions about what happens to:
1. The diagram in section 10.4:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…hyANational.pdf
2. The table above the venn diagram.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…pVTaxStatus.htm
You said the existing diagrams and tables are WRONG, which is fine, but you didn't indicate what they SHOULD look like to make them right. That is what we are talking about as far as approaching the problem with a constructive attitude. Anyone can say you are wrong, discredit, slander, and ciritcize, but few would step forward and accept responsibility for showing how to make it RIGHT. Isn't this really the biggest problem and criticism that most people have with the present government: That they WON'T help you comply by providing this kind of help?
We want NEW diagrams and tables that are consistent with what you say, consistent with the statues you cite, and consistent with themselves. We're not at all ashamed to admit that we just don't see how to make them consistent. We are trying to eliminate cognitive dissonance and we need your help because we don't see how to do it. And yes, we do appreciate your input so far. If you aren't able to do this, then you really don't understand all the implications of what you are advocating and therefore shouldn't be advocating it.
Your analysis is also week on caselaw. Please show us more caselaw that supports your position.
We think the real issue is that you are confusing Title 8 and Title 26. We don't think an alien in Title 26 is the same as an alien in Title 8. They are different and that difference is being maliciously hidden because they never define what an “alien” is. The Canadian Income Tax Act does exactly the same thing. They impose the tax upon “residents” and never define what a “resident” is, but it means an “alien” with a domicile on government property. We think the reason they are hiding it has to do with the following:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 10.4
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Franchises.pdf
It seems as though an alien in Title 26 is anyone not domiciled on federal territory while an alien in Title 8 is anyone who is not a “national”. That makes the table above the venn diagram especially problematic. We won't fully understand all the implications of what you are proposing until you copy the table, paste it into a word document, and edit it to be consistent with itself, with both titles, and with everything you have said. Then post it as an attachment to these forums for all to review, as you so kindly and skillfully did with the venn diagram.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…pVTaxStatus.htm
We need more helpers and fewer critics. Prove you are helper and not a critic. This ministry is supposed to be a team that functions for the equal benefit of all, not a competition that glorifies and empowers only an elite few.
Quote:“He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help.”[Abraham Lincoln]
-
Another Update on George Mercier by Larry Becraft:
SOURCE: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/MercierCriticism.html
____________________________________________
Finally!! The Real George Mercier!!!
(Posted Sept. 18, 2009)
Lots of people have been complaining about my analysis of George Mercier's work, Invisible Contracts, that, from a lawyer's viewpoint, was unmitigated legal garbage. Recently, some have been contending that he was a judge, clerk of some federal court, etc, and thus my criticism of him was unjustified. Frankly, I thought the man was nuts!!! To learn something about the guy, I decided to check with Pacer to see if he ever engaged in litigation. What I found was surprising.
Pacer is in essence a federal website that connects a subscriber to the docket sheets for all federal cases, civil and criminal, across the country. Once on Pacer, you can pull up the docket sheet for any pending federal lawsuit, and obtain PDF images of the pleadings in the case, particularly those filed since the early part of this century. To try to find any suit filed by Mercier, I inserted his name in a search box on Pacer that would locate any case by a party of that name. The results of my query resulted in links to some 226 cases instituted by a George Mercier.
I pulled up the docket sheets for just a few of these cases, and from these, I was able to obtain copies of complaints filed by George Mercier. In these complaints, Mercier provides some information about himself and the parties he is suing. Please read:
One of Mercier's first lawsuits
Mercier's complaint against U.S. Attorney Bogen
Magistrate's report explaining the activities of Mercier
Feel free to visit Pacer and read more complaints filed by Mercier. Frankly, after reading one of his first complaints about bombing Paris, I immediately concluded he was nuts. Draw whatever conclusion you want; I have drawn the conclusion that he is a pothead suffering from delusions.
-
Neo,
You may be overlooking some key points about sovereign immunity:
1. A waiver of sovereign immunity under 28 USC 1605 is by subject matter, not for ALL things. You can be a “resident” equivalent by receiving a “U.S. sourced” (government) payment but be a “nonresident” and a sovereign for all other purposes not directly related to or resulting from the payment. This is the same thing the government does: They have to waive sovereign immunity before you can sue them, and the waiver relates directly to the subject matter at hand and not to all subject matters.
2. Receipt of a “U.S. sourced” (goernment) payment would seem to carry with it a waiver of sovereign immunity in so far as you must be a federal “person” within the title of the code governing the payment, which in this case is Title 5 and Title 50 of the U.S. Code.
3. In the case of a military commissioned officer, the “person” that is the “resident” is the “public office” occupied, which is a federal corporation and a statutory “U.S. citizen”, and the officer is surety for the actions of the office by contract, but not otherwise a federal “person”.