franklin
Forum Replies Created
“Marriage” in statutes or even in Constitutions, is a word of art because it generally means that a man and a woman marry each other in some personal convenant, which may, and often is, religious in nature.
And so it confuses the public just as many statutes and constitutions do with common English words.
As with any contract, if a common word has a special meaning then it should be part of the contract as a full disclosure requirement.
And so in statutes and constitutions (the word marriage is not in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights)… the definition would be something like this…
Quote:The term “marriage” shall mean: A commercial contract between two mutually agreeable parties and a state which has been memorialized by a signed state marriage license certified by a state deputy.As with other words of art, if “marriage” were properly defined by the state, instead of encouraging the popular understanding of the word, most people probably would not give their consent.
Notice that the above definition also covers same-sex marriages inasmuch as a license makes legal what would be illegal without the license.
To summarize…
Bing wrote:
Shoot first (Law of Necessity when criminals break into your home). [And, as one sherrif told a female friend of mine: “Make sure the ciminals're inside before you shoot 'em! And if you shoot 'em, do it right, otherwise you'll be supportin' 'em on disability for the rest of their lives!”]
Quote:I mean, hypothetically speaking, the unlawful entrants, could be met by a TEC 9 or a Taurus handgun (ouch). Taurus is a neat little tool that shoots shotgun shells. If the unlawful entrant gets hit with a Taurus shell, there is no stopping the bleeding. 😮Admin wrote:
Ask questions later…
Quote:Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.004FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…urisdiction.pdf
If it were me, I would have explained in the petition for the case that:
1. I don't want an “opinion” but a statement of facts and positive law in the ruling.
2. Any decision by the Supreme Court to declare public policy and act as a member of the Executive branch shall conclusively be construed as the private acts of de facto officers.
3. I would have attached a franchise agreement that authorizes me to issue the ruling in the case that the judges vacate the de jure bench and act in a political capacity, because SOMEONE has the do the job of a REAL court when the true constitutional office has been vacated, or violence and a threat to public safety will be the result.
4. I would have attached a DEFAULT order and default admissions for all issues they refuse to address…
and then finish them off with…
Quote:Fed.Rul 8(b )(6).Members working together to make the world safer by enforcing the rule of law (which is sometimes a necessity). Luv it! 🙂
This site is devoted on religious and legal grounds to the fact that presumptions can rival money as the root of all evil.
The government has impeached its statements over and over again, contradicting itself, and inventing new 'news' about this (probably) non-event.
While it is useful to know about the email technique, it's not rocket science.
But, to make the point without a disclaimer referencing the presumption that OBL was still alive a month ago and taken down by navy seals seems to go against the established policy of debunking presumptions with fact and law that is the cornerstone of the importance and effectiveness of this website.
When government officials debunk their own lies, we should believe them…that what they said was bunk in the first place.
The site is clearly not an emergency room for people who are about to receive 3rd degree burns from the IRS. You should be able to tell that from the sheer amount of material here.
If you read the notice of levy statute, it is perfectly clear who they can notice-of-levy against. If you're on their list as someone they can levy against, then pay up and your back will no longer be against the wall.
Also, if you've familiarized yourself with the forums, you will notice that exchange of ideas and information takes place, but legal advice to people in trouble is noticeably absent from the activities of the site. You can 'pay it forward' by letting readers of this forum know what you did in response to the notice and whether or not it worked.
After going through the Path to Freedom, you will have all the legal advice, gleaned from your own study of the law, that you need to be your own legal counsel.
If you follow the Path to Freedom, which takes time, effort and study, you will not have your “back to the wall” and need to be helicoptered out of your combat zone.
Having prepared yourself, you will know precisely how to respond when the IRS contacts you providing unsolicited “customer service”.
If you became a 'newbie' here for legal advice you're not on the Path to Freedom. If you became a 'newbie' to learn who you are in the American Republic, then you are on the Path to Freedom.
Your choice.
Choose wisely.
Prollins:
State constitutions “protect property” from criminals other than state public servants.
However, the states are not bound by the two taxing provisions and their respective rules found in the federal constitution and can tax directly without apportioning the tax among the counties.
Many states have personal property taxes, some limit that to cars, others don't limit it very much.
Most patriots give the impression that they are almost entirely focused on the federal government when they should be focused on their state and local governments who can have a more immediate effect on their daily lives.
If your neighbor is in possession of public property, such as a social security card, and verifies that he is a federal official on duty whenever he uses or has used that number (does he have a business license? If so, then he had to use a ssn to get it) then he is a transferee of, and using government property to earn gross income from a trade or business, as defined. Some states assert in their statutes that they use the same definitions found in 26 USC.
If he is a transferee of government property, then you might want to introduce him to the path to freedom.
As Confucius's 4th cousin twice removed once said: “Don't get mad, get even!” 🙂
It looks like all non-statutory citizens will have to turn in their cellphones because they are not qualified to receive sensitive information intended for federal officers on federal territory.
Cell phones are rapidly becoming a person's implanted chip. They can give info about exactly where a picture was taken, etc. etc. etc.
You can even comparison shop I'm told. All a 'cellie' has to do is point a phone at the barcode of an item she cannot live without and her slave phone surfs the internet for that item and gives her the competing prices and the stores within a certain radius of her location.
Then she can give the manager of the store she's in that info and tell her that if she doesn't lower the price, her business is toast…”I'm going elsewhere because my phone slave has told me exactly where the best price is located and directions on how to get there”.
Sounds like a stick up and extortion to me.
Maybe cell phones should be gun-shaped so when the cellie holds it to the store manager's head 😮 and says through clenched teeth and squinty eyes: “Go ahead, make my day” she'll know you mean business. :ph34r:
The upside for those who control and sell a person's information, or give it away to the government who wants to see if they're buying a copy of the Constitution, is that a cellie is under observation for everything they do, every place they are, “they” even know when a cellie's at home and not at home and “they” know the cellie's address because “they” also can determine the coordinates of an inactive cell phone between the hours of 11pm and 7am when the chipped person is sound asleep.
And the cellie pays through the nose for this tracking service. And…
because the gov, the president for pete's sake, is providing the cellie with an information service, there will be an excise tax imposed on this service EVEN IF THE CELLIE OPTS OUT.
Bing,
There is also a SC case, I believe, but I do not recall at the moment, to the effect that once the Constitution has attached to the land, the land remains protected by the Constitution even if the feds acquire it.
Could be wrong, but I'm sure I read that somewhere.
Interesting and useful. There are also two aside points that are interesting.
1. The common law of Maryland, from which DC was carved, remained applicable on federal land.
Quote:But, by the common law, a further qualification exists. If that law remains in force in this regard [i.e. a plea in abatement, which is a common law plea] in this District a different decision is called for from that made in this case. The common law in force in Maryland, February 27, 1801, remains in force here, except as the same may be inconsistent with or replaced by some provision of the Code for the District, Code, § 1, c. 1, p. 5. It has not been contended that the common law upon the subject of jurors was not in force in Maryland at the above-named date, or that it did not remain in force here, at least up to the time of the passage of the Code.2. The distinction between 'counselors' and 'attorneys' is referenced.
Quote:Sec. 217. All executive and judicial officers, salaried officers of the government of the United States and of the District of Columbia and those connected with the police or fire departments, counselors and attorneys at law in actual practice, ministers of the gospel and clergymen of every denomination, practicing physicians and surgeons, keepers of hospitals, asylums, alms-houses, or other charitable institutions created by or under the laws relating to the District, captains and masters and other persons employed on vessels navigating the waters of the District shall be exempt from jury duty, and their names shall not be placed on the jury lists.”Black's 6th says that the right to assistance of counsel means being represented by a licensed attorney.
Under “Counsel, right to” Black's says…
Quote:Counsel, however within the Sixth Amendment does not include a lay person but refers only to person authorized to practice lawNo authority is cited for this ridiculous statement.
Bing,
Strategically, your suggested procedure would not only be effective but is plain common sense.
However, it rests on the presumptions that
- OBL was in fact alive.
- That he was killed by the US.
- That he was in fact enemy #1.
All of the discrepancies in the frivolous government conspiracy theory are accounted for saying that the the swat team was confused by the “fog of war”.
In that case, how do they know they were even at the right house?
The house of a man from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia looked like a pigsty.
AND THERE WAS NO DIALYSIS MACHINE TO BE SEEN ANYWHERE.
BOB's poll ratings went up right after the announced death of OBL. A nice start to his reelection campaign.
In July of 2001, Le Figaro reported that bin Laden was hospitalized in Dubai for ten days. During that time he met with the local director of the CIA and left on the 14th in his private jet.
Quote:http://universitypress.info/AmericaBetrayed11.html
****** On July 15, 2001, while receiving treatment for liver and renal dysfunction, at the American hospital in Dubai, Osama bin Laden was interviewed by a CIA agent. As detailed by United Press International (44), Radio France International (45) and Le Figaro (43), Bin Laden reportedly checked into the American Hospital on July 4, received dialysis and related treatment, and checked out on July 14. During his 10 day stay, bin Laden met with family members and a stream of local dignitaries, including a well known local CIA agent. These publications, citing French intelligence officials, claim that similar meetings had been taking place for years: “the CIA maintained contacts with bin Laden…Those contacts didn't end after bin Laden moved to Afghanistan” (43).
According to French Intelligence officials, bin Laden provided “precise information” to the CIA about an imminent attack on the US” as well as details about an attack on the U.S. embassy in Paris which two weeks later resulted in the arrest of Djamel Beghal who later “confessed to receiving his orders from bin Laden” (44).
There is not one thin shred of evidence that OBL was alive when he was 'killed' last week.
- There is no body.
- His family is ignoring the whole affair.
- And he may have been a CIA asset.
The whole thing appears to be a calculated political smoke and mirrors event to get the incredibly dumb people who fell for “Yes We Can” to vote for “Enemy #1” again.
Even the government who so efficiently carried out the murder of a dead man keeps admitting that they have no idea what happened due to the “fog of war” and the blatant lies on which they have backtracked.
To prevent retaliation for this non-event, the gov. will now assault and wage war on the American people to protect them and keep them safe from angry extremists.
It's a no brainer calculated for consumption by no brainers.
What is needed is someone in the WH press corps to belly up and ask a simple question… “WHERE'S THE BEEF?”
Well, the issues have to be complex before they can be simplified by students of FG and SEDM.
Good students are a credit to good teachers.
Many patriots have simplified the issues to their detriment by holding up silver bullets and not seeing the complex web the government has woven around simple, easily expressed ideas (e.g. the Bill of Rights)
The issues are pretty simple (as in — sign up for a government franchise and you've deposed yourself as a sovereign so stop whining).
While the issues are simple (as in — stay on your own property and don't trespass on property that belongs to government or you'll be fined and sent to jail), the complexity occurs as a direct result of government balderdash, and judicial promulgation of that balderdash.
So the complexity has to be demonstrated in all of it's intricacy BEFORE it can be formulated and expressed in simpler words.
And only FG and SEDM have done that by unraveling, thread by thread, the golden robe of the whore of Babylon and shown the gold to be dross.
Simple expression of well-understood complex matters is a kudo in itself to FG and SEDM.
So the kudos expressed in my earlier post attach by the laws of thinking to FG and SEDM 🙂
Admin:
Excellent piece of writing! 🙂 It elucidates, illustrates and motivates all at the same time AND in language easily understood.
It provides a concise summary with which anyone could evaluate any situation, and be a critical thinker; as when a town seizes an automobile, as if it were itself a criminal, for unpaid traffic tickets (and the only witness is a machine which may perjure itself by malfunctioning).
And it puts the burden for all the 'government ills' squarely where it belongs, on the consenting people…
Quote:You cannot elect the solution to the problem when the cause is your consent… to socialism, to democracy, to bribery, and to usury.Knowledge isn't very useful in practical situations unless it can be organized as it is acquired around some fundamental idea. And Admin's post certainly provides that.
The post might well serve as the opening statement to the Path to Freedom so that everything a person subsequently reads can be understood with something they've already read and know.
It's like the opening to a symphony where the composer first plays the main notes from each of the elaborated musical themes that will follow. It eases the listener into the more complex version of the theme that comes later.
This post is just like that. It eases the listener into the more complex documented writings to follow.
Nice job Beethoven! 😀
Author #2:
Thanks for this post. It is certainly important for a person challenging federal jurisdiction within a state's borders, to know whether the federal government had retained jurisdiction when the state was admitted into the union; or whether the federal government notified a state of accepting jurisdiction over land ceded to it as required by law.
I've always been under the impression that once a territory became a state, the feds automatically gave up exclusive jurisdiction over much of the land mass not used for federal purposes (i.e., needful buildings)
So, thanks for those case law cites, they've corrected a major error in my thinking about federal jurisdiction.
It would be helpful for the poster of videos like this one (no viewer controls, no progress bar to show how much of the video is left), to give some points from the video and its length when that can't be known from the video.
After 40 minutes I switched out of it; Porter Stansbury, had made his point for the 10th or 11th time and there was no end in sight. I knew most of the stuff but, he's right — most people don't know it and need to watch this video. So, I hope they follow it through to the end, whenever that may occur.
It seems to defeat his purpose of enlightening others with a video that will consume an unknown but large quantity of time.
And, he is after all a business man, so the danger is that the video may be pre-selling a sales pitch so that, toward the end of the video, there will be some kind of urgent message to subscribe to his investment newsletter, which would fulfill his promise to tell people how to protect themselves from the already approaching tsunami.
Dr. Brooks is going ga ga.
First of all, the Archbishop of Canterbury supports replacing Magna Carta with Sharia law.
An Anglican priest friend of mine, also delerious with wedding fever, remarked that the bride's dress was pretty and traditional. Traditional wedding dresses do not cost 50,000 lbs.
The expense and show of all English royal events are justified as being good for British business. The wedding's purpose was primarily and foremost a commercial enterprise.
Quote:The women were adorned in elegant, feminine dresses.(Except for Ps Anne who apparently took the plastic shower curtain from her basement rec room, the one with the huge purple roses, and wrapped herself in it. And the bimbo Ps Beatrice who was apparently wearing her Twitter Antenna on her head. BTW, is Dr. Brooks blind?)
If you love fashion and great music in church, you do not have to sit in front of the telly getting aroused by the pairing of a semi-hot young couple. No…
Just go to any church with an Afro-American congregation on a Sunday morning and you will see elegantly dressed and beautifully hatted women, and girls in pretty frocks and men and boys in well-cut three-piece suits. And it is to honor the Lord and has no commercial motive at all.
Quote:The vows: The vows embodied the holy ideal of marriage. Biblical and thoroughly Christian, the Archbishop honored God, marriage, and the Church. What a symbolic reminder that “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” [Deuteronomy 6:13: Matthew 19].Vows mean nothing, zilch, nada to the British royal family.
Divorce (as well as mental and moral instability) is a tradition in the British royal family. Henry VIII had six wives…
Katherine of Aragon — divorced,
Anne Boleyn — head whacked off for infidelity
Jane Seymour — died in childbirth
Anne of Cleves — divorced for being too ugly
Catherine Howard — a horny wench beheaded for infidelity
Catherine Parr — managed to survive as Henry's widow.
James I (Mary, Queen of Scots son, or daughter) espoused to the beautiful Duke of Buckingham. Referred to by the people as Queen James, who succeeded King Elizabeth I. Commissioned his own version of the Bible.
The Georges, especially the madman Geo III.
George IV, addicted to morphine, abandoned his wife Caroline, because she smelled bad, for his five mistress, and would not let her attend the coronation (which would have also been her coronation). Supported a Bill of Pains and Penalties in the parliament. (Let no man or woman put asunder?)
Edward VII (Queen Victoria's son) had a long time mistress to whom the queen (Alexandra) paid deference (Let no man or woman put asunder?)
Edward VIII abdicated to marry the twice divorced Wallis Simpson.
Princess Margaret, (present queen's sister) turned down her true love, a divorced man, to marry another man in a “royal wedding”, only to divorce him and take up with a boy toy).
Princess Anne (of the purple rose shower curtain) married in a “royal wedding” divorced her husband (who still lives on her estate) and remarried her equerry (messenger boy).
Prince Andrew married Sara Ferguson in a “royal wedding”. She was photographed bare-breasted having her toes sucked by her paramour. Divorced but now living together in sin.
Prince Andrew recently accused of sexual impropriety with adolescent females.
Prince Charles married Diana Spencer in a “royal wedding” but never gave up his mistress, a married and now divorced woman, and divorced his wife to marry his mistress. He talks to the trees in his garden.
And Dr. Brooks thinks we should be taking lessons from these people. What color Kool-Aid is he drinking.
And if you look at pictures of the queen throughout the proceedings of the recent royal wedding, she looks mighty glum.
Either she was seriously constipated or she was wondering how much the traditional royal divorce will cost her a few years hence.
The entire thing honored the god of commerce under the color of religion.
The worshipful Dr. Brooks has put strange gods before the Big Guy, which is prohibited by the First Commandment.
He would do well to take his lessons from the Commandments and not from the House of Sax-Coburg-Gotha (now called Windsor to dissociate themselves from their German roots during WWI).
Well Dr. Brooks, I hope the ladies in your congregation take up with boy toys, have their toes sucked and all wear funny hats to your next service. That should send you into ecstacy and jump start your sermon.
I agree, the lack of organization among patriots is undermining efforts to put the federal government back in its 10 square mile box.
But the plan is idealistic and difficult to implement for at least three reasons:
1. Government franchises. As one man, a White House correspondent, told me…I don't give a damn about the Constitution, I love my $27,000 a year social security checks. Another couple told me, “We couldn't keep the beach house without our social security checks.” Educating these people, who I believe represent the masses, is virtually impossible.
2. The Hegelian dialectic which gives credibility to government wrong doing. For example:
a. Obama killed Osama. Much of the world knows, and Mrs. Bhutto said publicly, that OS, who required frequent dialysis, has been dead for several years. And the WH knows it too but just in time for the new presidential campaign they put out the news of OS's execution. They do not care whether the story is credible or not because…
it will divide the people who will debate based on their irrational love of the would be messiah OB, and the “conspiracy theorists” who will demand to know why the body wasn't produced for expert examination. As long as the people are divided, the false debate will keep the people from rallying around the issue and uniting in a common cause. The government's propaganda simply will not be destroyed while such a useless debate goes on. The government knows it must keep the matter controversial so the population remains divided.
b. The newly released OB birth certificate, a document declared false by counterfeiting experts in different parts of the world. The WH could not care less about the authenticity of the document, only that it divides the people into a useless debate and keeps them that way.
3. The plan is idealistic because it does not provide for the uses of the emotional appeal of propaganda, based on authentic constitutional values. The Hebrews did not want to leave the 'security' of living under the Pharaoh, until God made it clear that, as the Living God, he could and would provide for them ; the colonists did not want to leave the 'security' of living under the unhinged George III, until Thomas Paine wrote the eloquent Common Sense; the modern American does not think at all in terms of principles, or even ethics. The modern American “thinks” with feelings in material terms, as in “what's in it for me?”
In this context, these remarks are not meant as a criticism of Americans, but my take on facts about Americans and government propaganda that must be taken into account in any plan to reignite the fervor of the Founders. If “we” are the enemy, then we must know the enemy well in order to deal with them effectively.
What is needed is a revolution, and the Constitution provides the mechanics for making it unbloody. But, the plan does not include the propaganda machine necessary to make the co-opted, enfranchised American people want to put the Constitution back into action.
The plan provided is the first step, lay the fire. What is needed is the match to light it.
The states, the American people can easily put the government back in its box.
Instead of a state, like Arizona (AZ), going to a federal territorial judge to declare it sovereign in relation to the federal territorial government, the state should have just said NO to federal attempts to prevent Arizona from enforcing its laws and protecting its southern border.The government does not have to petition the government for redress. The Second Amendment provides the means for a “free state” to declare itself sovereign…and enforce it if need be.
Every state legislature should simply say NO to the 17th Amendment and just elect two Senators and send them to Washington and tell them create demands to be seated and not to come back before they are recalled. This would be a match to light the fire.
Ghandi brought down the British Empire with great eloquence and it didn't take a book…He just said NO.
He was the match that lit the fire.
The match is missing from the proposed plan.
