One of the best parts of the modified passport notice and demand is at the end.

After calling them malicious communists, slave holders and criminals, and proving it with legal citations, and after generally tying them to a legal stake and flogging them mercilessly, while telling them with each stroke of the lash exactly what they will have to do in the future to avoid criminal complaints and civil action unprotected by the Fifth Amendment, the letter is signed…

“Very Respectfully, John Doe”.

Great Line!!!

Hey BobT

I didn't specify the group I was talking about. The president won't raise Johnwk's issue, and the politicians listening to him won't either.

Of course, there is no place in the Constitution that authorizes the Constitutional president to promote healthcare by federal law. But, he is not the constitutional president and refuses, adamantly, to show the necessary documents that would verify his status as such.

Of course, the people are raising the issue about the socialist unconsitutional nature of federal health care, but that is not stopping ob from pursuing it. I meant the complicit congress and the co-opted press will not raise the question in any meaningful, constitutional way.

Of course ob is committing fraud by allowing people to think he is either occupying the oval office constitutionally or even unconstitutionally. He is the president of a company with a constitution-sounding name, an idem sonens if you will, of the constitutional land mass k/a the united States of America. He is not occupying that office unlawfully as the corporation has no natural born citizen requirement. The fraud is hiding the fact of the corporation while allowing people to believe he is the consitutional president.

“He took an oath under the Constitution. It doesn't matter if it is listed in the Jupiter Times.”

Did he take an oath under the constitution? He took two oaths, one public one semi private and not televised. But were either of them relevant. The constitution is not effective against a board of directors of a company and the ceo with whom they contract. If the oath was only for show, to keep the corporation secret from the public, then that is further fraud.

“A fraudulent contract is unjust, thus, the Constitution can be used against such action.”

The corporate contract may not be “unjust”. It would be a mountainous burden of proof to show that it was. And what court would hear such a thing if you lack standing because you have not been personally harmed.

I do not disagree at all with you or Johnwk. My only point is that ob, those around him and the press will not raise the constitutional issue because as a corporate officer he can make policy for those also under contracts or franchise agreements with the corporation. Under no circumstances can they blow the corporate cover. That, I believe, is why he simply ignores all challenges to his birth citizenship. It's irrelevant to a corporation. The people may be raising constitutional issues about health care at town hall meetings, but you cannot argue the constitution to Wal Mart or the United States of America, Inc. or to the President of the United States, Inc. domiciled at 1600 Penn. Ave. N.W. Wash, D.C.

This is the same problem with the IRS, a 1938 Delaware company. Most people think its a government agency.

Even though people believe the IRS to be a government agency, and thereby are led into fraudulent, unlawful contracts…it is simply not enough to be right that fraud vitiates any contract ab initio. But, bearing the burden of proof, try to find a judicial forum, with a non-taxpayer judge, who will not dismiss the suit using the “f” word because the Article IV courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate such questions.

The only way to have the constitutional issue raised that I can think of is in the non-mainstream press, and at the very public town hall meetings. But, “the USA is a corporation” issue would have to be introduced so that people are aware of how different the organic government they refer to is from an artificial corporation with no jurisdiction over a land mass.

MHO is that when people understand the corporate nature of the government, then they will be able to ask questions that have to be answered, “Where's the contract?” “When did I sign it?” “Was I of legal age to sign it?” “Were all material facts disclosed?”

The politicians and the government could not ignore these questions because the federal courts are not prohibited from entertaining contract questions, whereas they are prohibited from answering constitutional tax questions.

The constitutional question raised by Johnwk makes finding a remedy difficult to impossible. My belief is that the contract questions offer more hope and chance of success. At the very least if they are raised loudly at town hall meetings and in even the non-mainstream press, those questions will blow the cover on government by corporation. Something that is long overdue. Though the corporate nature of government is known to FG and SEDM readers, mainstream Americans think a government is a government is a government. Not so. And they need to know the difference between a law-making government and a policy-making corporation.

There are a number of very interesting issues in this thread in addition to establishing that one is a non-citizen national.

1. How difficult congress has made it to ascertain if and how the federal government recognizes that not everyone is subject to its jurisdiction. For that clarification we only have the benefit of the painstaking legal research of FG and SEDM.

2. Neo makes an important practical point in relation to using a passport abroad. No matter how you require the federal and state govs to treat you at home, you are a U.S. Person in the IRS sense when you are abroad and will be treated accordingly. So, in practical terms, in relation to a passport when actually travelling, the non-citizen national distinction carries no meaning for foreign officials and bureaucrats.

After the UBS scandal broke earlier this year, and new relationships formed under the color of treaty between the IRS and various countries, American passports are not welcome in foreign banks unless the account holder signs under penalty of perjury the private IRS W-9 form full of words of art to the effect that they are indeed U.S. Persons. Some banks don't even offer the W-9 form, having ceased to have any relationship to the IRS. In those banks, American passports are not welcome under any circumstance. I learned this from an American couple who have been living abroad for more than 10 years. After the UBS publicity, their bank summarily closed their account. And a commercial company that they had done business with for several years, canceled their charge account. Reason: “We are no longer able to do business with U.S. Persons.” They have had to move back to the US which takes them away from their daughter, who married a national of the country they presently live in, and away from their grandchildren.

So, regardless of an American's status a US passport has been rendered essentially useless for those who want to live, work, or establish a business abroad, unless they declare themselves under penalty of perjury to be U.S. Persons. Freedom of association is truncated, and the passport is basically useful for tourism for those who have established themselves as non-citizen nationals. That would be fine with the IRS because it effectively hinders capital flight.

3. Under REMITTANCE OF FEES on both the DS-11 (new application) and the DS-82 (renewal by mail) forms, it says the following:

As you might expect, “person” is that lifeless artificiality of 26USC. 31 USC 5312(a)(5) (5) “person”, in addition to its meaning under section 1 of title 1, includes a trustee, a representative of an estate and, when the Secretary prescribes, a governmental entity.

So, even if you assert or establish non-citizen national status, it may be a contradiction to pay the fee, agreeing to become a “person”, in the federal gov sense.

I may have missed it but I didn't see the term “person” addressed in the Definition Section of the passport attachment form. Is it there? Should it be?

It seems that Springer gets himself mired in taxpayer details. One example would be his petitioning of the Tax Court, which is an administrative office in the executive branch.

In that kangaroo 'court' he is the Plaintiff and bears the burden of proof.

Moreover, the Commissioner is the wrong 'respondent', because it is only the Secretary who decides (and bears the burden of proof for his decision) whether one is a transferee in possession of government property that must be returned. The Commissioner neither decides who is a transferee and bears no burden of proof about who is a transferee. That's why the tax 'court' cannot adjudicate who is and who is not a taxpayer. The only one who has the burden of proof, the Secretary, is not a party to tax 'court' proceedings.

The tax 'court' has no jurisdiction to decide whether a tax is owed , that is whether or not the Secretary notified a person that s/he was a transferee (so the assertion of the PRA by Springer as authority that he does not have to file a form 1040, because it has an invalid OMB number, under penalty of perjury asserting some gross income or zero gross income is off point by miles and miles).

By 'petitioning' the tax court against the wrong defendant, Springer gets mired down in legalisms that the courts use to smack him around.

My understanding, and I may be wrong and would welcome correction so feel free to tell me so, is…

One receives a Notice of Deficiency for certain 'taxable years' (how do you tax a year anyway?).

This NOD is bogus from the get go because the figures are manufactured from hearsay 'information' unsigned by the party providing the information and not signed under penalty of perjury as 26 USC 6065 requires it to be.

Then penalties are applied.

Now we have an NOD morphed into a Bill of Attainder…which creates a constitutional issue…a deprivation of property and deprivation of due process rights issue. And, it naturally follows, that there is a serious jurisdictional issue if the matter is going to get adjudicated. The tax 'court' can provide no remedy, no relief, from a Bill of Attainder.

The subject of the NOD-Bill of Attainder is told to petition the tax 'court' as the plaintiff (bearing the burden of proof)

The tax 'court' sends out its propaganda (saying it is an independent judicial (!!!) body) and asks for a filing fee to 'docket' the 'case'.

The fee turns the matter into a commercial contract issue and removes the Bill of Attainder taint because, by petitioning the tax 'court', it is presumed that you have agreed to its jurisdiction and its rulings…and it can only rule on the amount owed, not on whether you owe some amount in the first place.

To argue in the tax 'court' that the PRA frees you from filing tax returns results in the time-and-money-consuming legal battles that Springer finds himself in.

The tax 'court' had no jurisdiction whatsoever, until Springer signed his 'pleading' and paid the filing fee. Without entering into a contract with the tax 'court' the NOD remains a Bill of Attainder pure and simple…and completely unlawful.

The tax 'court' has no jurisdiction over a Bill of Attainder which is a clear constitutional question that cannot be adjudicated in an administrative office of the executive branch. It would have to be addressed in an Article III court (if you can find one).

The tax 'court' is an Article 0 'court' (actually it's an Article I court but what's the difference?). It's 'judges' (judge is a constitutional designation under Article III) are 'judicial transvestites' who like to dress up in the little basic black dress of the other branch of government…like when you were a kid and you dressed up like Superman or Cinderella and pretended that's who you really were.

But those cross-dressers can adjudicate whether you have defaulted on a contract with the Commissioner, after you sign the contract (your 'pleading') and put it into commerce (the filing fee) and ask them to resolve the matter.

Jurisdiction; how to recognize it, how to confer it, and how to avoid it, is the first and fundamental issue when dealing with any branch of government or the for-profit corporations through which they act.

One hates to say it, but in Springer's case, they resolved it correctly (with a great deal of help from him).

Thanks for the post Stija.

If people only understood that paper scrip and digits on their bank statements were not money, that in using them there is no trading of value for value, and that real money and its use also involves morality (honesty in weights and measures), it would be a different world. Maybe that world is coming as people realize more and more that they've been had. I hope so.

The link appears to be broken (at least my browser says it is). They may have removed the video. Did anyone download it?

True, but not exactly a slogan Admin. Not economical enough. Too specific. A good slogan lets the reader put in the details. The embedded slogan in all of that is actually “No You Can't”. Then let the reader put in the list of all their grievances. (And I like doo-doo head president rather than butt head president. Seems more rhetorical. 😉 Just a personal preference.)

A slogan in retort to “Yes we can” would be “Yes We Can? Says Who?!!” or “Yes We Can? So can WE!!” and if you really feel testosterony you could add “Mr. Butthead president.” But it would lose what punch it has by making it longer. So, it should be “Yes we can?? So can WE Butthead!!” (In this example I like butthead better than doo-doo head which sounds too polite). And of course there can be no footnotes in a slogan or documentation 🙄 . Slogans are about subjective truth, not objective truth.

But slogans need to be short and in themselves grammatically meaningless to be effective. The reader gives the meaning not the writer, that's the rule. But slogans also have the heavy task of pointing the reader in your preferred direction.

For example, look at how that highly divisive president, Richard Nixon, used the slogan “Bring us together” to create hope in the masses. Or Johson who sold socialism big time with his “Great Society”. Hillbilly's emphasis on experience went nowhere. She'd have got further with something like “Big Mama loves ya!”, precisely because she is just the opposite of a lovin' mama. Look at how “a wise latina woman” will forever be associated with that dumb, dumber, dumbest new supreme court injustice…the one who looks like a pig wearin' a wig.

Look at how B.F. Skinner's book sent harvard and the rest of the psychology world into paroxysms of admiration for his book, still read today, “Beyond Freedom and Dignity.” It was and is considered deep (though even grammatically it's a piece of trash). In truth, you'd have to be a diehard dumbf–k to think there was some value in getting beyond freedom and dignity. But it set the social scientific world afire.

No, sorry admin. Slogans can't be laundry lists of truths. They must be little designer labels that let people feel moved beyond the ordinary (just like the United Colors of Beneton. What the heck does that mean. Well it means a lot to a lot of people who shell out billions of dollars to wear that stuff.)

Look at Jesus on a roll. “Blessed are the poor in spirit for they shall inherit the earth.” And think of the cumulative effect of all of the other statements added on to that one. “Blessed are the meek for they shall see God.” Well who knows what “poor in spirit” means? Answer: everyone who responds to that statement. Who knows what meekness is? Everyone who responds to that statement. (I know I'm meek, admin. But, I'm a little unsure about you 😛 )

It doesn't matter what those statements actually mean. What matters is that people are profoundly touched by them, moved and motivated by them, and become more God-aware through them. Great scriptual slogans. Right up there with “a chicken in every pot” to sell the nanny government to rugged individualists, something that is still with us today.

It's there. We just have to take the great talent for thought and word-making in these forums and believe that if words could be arranged to canonize that war criminal Lincoln, they can be boiled down and arranged to sum up FG and SEDM in 5 heart-stirring (not mind-stirring) words or less.