franklin
Forum Replies Created
Thanks for the IP addresses and new domain names for SEDM. When I couldn't get on the sites, there was a BIG sense of loss. But, I suspected derring do :ph34r: (I'm not sure what that is) from the criminal class and was certain that you had not folded your tents and disappeared into the night.
I tried to find someone to contact and found an email address for Ed Rivera and asked if he knew anything. He didn't…but he put me on his mailing list. Thanks Ed.
Welcome back into my life. 🙂
The Hawaii Department of Health has reportedly confirmed that the Nobama “birth certificate” lacks the prerequisite embossed seal and signature to certify it as a true copy of the original. Look here…
Could you be referring to Eduardo Rivera JD?
He and SEDM authored a book…”What Happened To Justice”…on federal territories and the federal district courts. It's available at sedm.org
Here's an update on the recent summons for books and records. I'm posting it so that other newbies may be helped to develop confidence in confining the beast to the outer territorial limits of its cage. And to check out some ideas as this thing proceeds.
The overall strategic principal is to keep jabbing them with the jurisdiction finger right from the first and to neither acknowledge nor discuss anything else with them unless and until jurisdiction is established. And it seems to work. So…here's a summary…
1. Agent and group manager send request for books and records.
2. Their offer is accepted on condition that they supply their territorial jurisdiction in the form of a valid Internal Revenue District verification…that they provide copies of their delegation of authority and enforcement pocket commissions to demonstrate that they had any right to send their request in the first place. And that if they did not meet these conditions, they would agree that they were operating in personal capacity outside of any Internal Revenue District…without any authority delegated to them by the secretary and…that they had no enforcement authority. They had ten days to respond since the information requested would be at their fingertips.
3. No response. Notice of default sent.
4. Summons for books and records arrives.
5. Their offer is accepted on condition that they cure their default (#3 above) immediately. Lacking such a cure their summons was returned, By Special Appearance, for cause (they admitted to no jurisdiction territorially or personally; they had not served the summons on a “person” (as defined) and as the statutes they provided for their authority required them to do. Clearly then their summons could not apply to a human being).
REFUSAL OF THE SUMMONS IS ACCEPTED.
What they did instead was to send the same summons to third parties with copies to me…and an invitation to file a motion to quash in the district court within 20 days for cause (I think you give the summons legal effect by going to court to quash it…because you're PRESUMING that a privately issued summons needs a judge to overrule it).
If this latest move on their part is met with silence, then they can presume CONSENT to the collection of third party information. So I plan to respond. But I'm not entirely sure how to proceed…though the jurisdictional approach seems the best way to go. Here's the tentative plan…if anyone has any non-legal-because-I'm-not-an-ttorney- advice or suggestions they can make under freedom of association and the First Amendment, I would be grateful.
Notice the agent and the group manager that they are acting in their personal capacities outside of any lawful Internal Revenue District as they have already admitted. Therefore, they do not have CONSENT to their unlawful attempts to contact third parties. That they admitted their personal, summonses, unauthorized by written delegation of authority from the Secretary, had no legal effect, and the same private summons to third parties would create no more compulsion on those parties than the same summons coming from a local shopkeeper would.
That notice with a cover letter will be mailed to the third parties putting them on notice that they do not have CONSENT to their sharing any personal information they may have with private parties who have no lawful authority to request it or to receive it. That before responding they must require from the agent and group manager lawful evidence of delegated collection and enforcement authority…and they have admitted they do not have it. That they, the third parties, would be in violation of their own privacy policies by giving such information without CONSENT to private individuals acting with no authority to request it. And legal redress would be sought if they did so (though I'm not sure what the controlling law is).
Reading and discussing all of the things on this website and feeling hopeful and encouraged is great…but formulating the information and putting it to work in real time situations is an even greater feeling.
Comments and suggestions welcome and appreciated.
Bing
Thanks for the very useful reply, I'm off to study this further.
BTW your skill at wry understatement suggests that you might have gone to Oxford or Cambridge
Quote:Wikipedia is of lesser dignity than the USA ConstitutionBut the point is well taken. Wikipedia often is better at raising questions (as it did in this matter) than answering them.
F
Good points.
I'll just copy and paste them over there.
Admin,
I'm not taking exception to your explanation.
Here's how the confusion arises in What Happened To Justice…
p 67 line 1 — Article III courts specifically identified in the law
line 4 — United States District Court of Hawaii
line 10 – United States District Court of the District of Columbia
line 18 – United States Court of International Trade
p 71 lines 8-9 United States District Court of the District of Columbia again referred to as one of two Article III Courts.
p 154 line 28 refers to the administrative Supreme Court
p 171 line 17 –
Quote:28 USC Sec. 251 – identifies the Court of International Trade as an Article III court. Is it? Any court of limited jurisdiction is very likely not capable of dispensing justice and is, therefore, not a judicial court. Congress has recreated courts as Article III that were earlier judicially declared by the Supreme Court to be legislative”…”In our two books we have carefully proven that no court inferior to the Supreme Court has been ordained and established pursuant to Article IIIBut this is apparently contradicted at page 246, lines 6 to 9. See quote below.
p 172 line 20-21
Quote:It is safe to “presume” that any federal judge is not an Article III judge because our research uncovered no inferior Article III courts.p 245 lines 21-22
Quote:All United States District Courts are Article IV territorial courts and Article III courtsShould there be a “not” before “Article III courts”?
p 246 line 6-9
Quote:the What Happened To Justice book plainly proves using enactments from the Statutes at Large that the ONLY Article III court ever created by Congress is the U. S. Court of International Trade 70 Stat 531. There is no other enactment of Congress which “ordains and establishes” any United States District Court as an Article III Court.But at page 171 line 17 the authors cast doubt on the Article III validity of the Court of International Trade.
In the end the point may be that the Statutes at Large do not support the Article III language of 28 USC. But that point is not made clearly from the get go and a reader can be confused about what conclusion to draw. And if an Article III court needs to be both established and ordained, not just one or the other, that needs to be made clear. And even if there is one, two or three, Article III courts, my impression from the book is that they are all staffed with happy taxpaying Article I and IV judges who are not ordained to administer justice. And the Supreme Court likewise.
I'm not presenting this as a criticism because the point about the lack of Article III authenticity is well documented in pages 42 and 43 of 28USC.
I'm thinking in terms of recommending the book to other people who are not yet members of the choir (like the three brand new attorneys in my family, graduates from highly regarded law schools who can't tell me the difference between an Article III court and and Article IV court). But, they will not be such careful, devoted readers. They need to be wowed with clarity. But they may wind up confused which will diminish the credibility of this important work.
So my suggestion is about style not about substance.
Admin
Thanks for the clarification about the disconnect between the legislative notes in 28 USC re the Hawaii court and the lack of proper supporting language in the SAL.
I'll go back and reread the sections in What happened to Justice to see where I went off the track thinking that the District Court for the District of Columbia was an Article III court.
Does anyone know about this group:
http://www.worldgovernment.org/docpass.html?s=1
Quote:The mandate for the WORLD PASSPORT is Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
The World Passport is a 30 page Machine Readable Travel Document (MRTD*) with alphanumeric code line, scanned-in passport photo and “ghost” security paper with embedded logo, the data page laminated, in 7 languages:
English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Chinese and Esperanto.
Each passport is numbered and each page contains the World Citizen logo as background. Two pages are reserved for affiliate identifications: diplomatic corps, organizations, firms, etc. There are nineteen visa pages. In the inside back cover, there is space for home address, next of kin, doctor, employer, driving license no. and national passport/identity number. The cover is blue with gold lettering.
For nation-state recognition, please go to Documents / Visas.
To apply for a World Passport, please go to the World Passport Application Form
They provide a fairly extensive list of countries that they claim have accepted it. The United States is listed as having issued the most visas for the passport. Click the link “visas' to check it out.
I just listened to those 4 presentations. It sounded like it was a phone conversation with one man rather than a lecture or seminar. But I had a similar sense to Bing?s of profound meaning. But I don't agree with Bing's other reaction.
Quote:It turns out that after all these years of studying this stuff, I don't know SQUAT!!!Bing, those audios did not wipe out your extensive knowledge and your passion for that knowledge was not wasted. The new information merely created confusion in your present thinking. Confusion is a great state of mind (unlike ignorance which is blissful unknowing). It is the prelude to all new understanding. And good teachers, by their questions, will work to create confusion in the minds of students as the antidote to rigidity or brain-deadness. (As we have all experienced, you can't facilitate integration in someone who has a closed, unconfused, made-up mind.) Only a mind open to new ideas can become confused (as you've demonstrated in your posts here in this thread.) Confusion doesn't mean ignorance (lack of knowledge). It's like a jig saw puzzle, you have all the pieces, they're just not all linked yet. I for one look forward to what you will have to say about this new awareness.
There, with that lecture you should feel a lot better now. 🙂
The guy made one very important point for me?that when he ?came out? from subjection, he personally found out that he had standing that was honored in the courts. The whole notion of standing and who has it and who doesn't has really been elusive for me. He said several times that the US government acts honorably toward people with standing (people who are not it's subjects). And the US government acts appropriately within the terms of its contracts toward those who contract with it and they have no standing to make a claim against it. Very interesting. Because in a contract, I thought, both parties have standing to apply any penalty clause. Confusion still reigns in my own thinking about standing.
The speaker refers to his website, but doesn't give the url. Is there any other information about him that others know of? I thought it might be Richard Grossman but the guy on the audios doesn't sound like him.
Meanwhile I'm off to study the SFG Articles of Confederation because I am now happily confused.
It's a realistic scenario. Pound Sterling notes from Scotland, Northern Ireland were not interchangeable and neither of those notes was interchangeable for London money, goods or services. I tried paying for lunch at Heathrow once with Northern Ireland Sterling notes. Turned down. I tried changing them into another currency at the airport and couldn't. The present day antique dealers in New York who reportedly want to be paid in Euros should be choosy about where their euros are printed if there's a chance they may not be spendable everywhere in the eurozone.
Riverway, your point is well taken.
lambskin,
Enough already!
I feel like I have a personal cheerleader here,
Quote:You?re doin? fine bud, hang in there and you can nail this thing shut.Quote:You don?t need to worry about reading the actual casesQuote:Why would you worry about the content of your response? If this thing ever got out of hand – such as if they were to arrest you and drag you in front of one of their tribunals – wouldn?t you have the ?Jury? approach to back you up?but the problem is you encourage presumptions and presumptions, the opposite of rationality, always lead to misunderstanding, misstatements, missteps, misalliances, and misery. The entire ministry of FG and SEDM, it seems to me, is to replace any and all presumptions with rationality based in fact and law.
I'm reading the CD What Happened to Justice? The astonishing presumptions about the courts and the Constitution that we all grew up with cover more 'territory' than the Grand Canyon.
I don't think keeping it simple means not worrying about the content of what I say, or assuming that I could wow some hypothetical court with my 'eloquence'.
Keeping it simple means stabbing the lie with the truth like the kid who said “look ma, the emperor's not wearing any clothes.” And it's that simple statement of truth I want to send by certified mail to the lying serpents in the Garden…the emperor's not wearing any clothes…and that's the truth (read the CD).
The problem is whittling down the massive knowledge base on jurisdiction from FG and SEDM to it's fundamental message and sending it off in a form that even an artificial, brain dead, person (as defined) would get a bit worried about what they were doing.
lambskin
Thank you for your response and encouragement.
I can relate to the notion that they have defaulted and admitted that they are trolling with a summons outside of an internal revenue district. And I think (maybe naively) that that simple fact would suffice to reject the summons and return it “for cause” as you say.
And my gut feeling is that you're right, I shouldn't be getting
Quote:bogged down in all the meaningless minutia of wrangling over which section says what or what title applies to whom; just stick to the basics of the law and make ?em ?prove up? with hard ?evidence?,And keeping the burden of proof on them is my passionate goal (because that's where it lawfully belongs; they are the moving party asserting 'facts').
Having said that, there are some problems for me with your thoughtful response.
1. Your suggestion
Quote:Write – ?Refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to Me.? across the front of the original (Meaning the summons you took out of the envelope). Write it angularly, or skewed, in relation to the direction of the text on the summons. This only needs to be written on the front of the summons.Then make a copy of the face of the summons with your ?Refusal? on it (Again, just for your record.).Send the ?refused? original and the envelope it came in back to them with your ?order?.
is problematic for me. Because, while I understand the idea behind the words ?Refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to Me.?, if I were challenged on that statement I would not be able to give the challenger a knowledgeable lecture on what it means, including the legal principles which the statement summarizes. I might be able to say what a triple axel is from a book I read, but if I put the ice skates on to demonstrate it, my ankles would wobble and I wouldn't get very far forward.
2. The link you provided leads to a page with a number of pdf files.
Quote:If you need to know more about this, how t?do a judgment and perfect the res judica, go here:Clicking on those links only leads to the Adobe Acrobat reader page. So none of those links are available to help clarify your recommendations.
And the description of one of those pdf links frankly seems suspect (which creates guilt by association for the other links)
Quote:The following transcript details a defendant beating the I.R.S. in just about the shortest amount of time I've ever seen. This is a 1994 case in California, and I have tried to copy it perfectly from my copy of the court reporter's transcript. The case number is crossed out in the middle, as is this man's last name.Without being able to see the name of the court and the case number or even the names of the parties to the case, how could a reader verify that it was even a real case? A court case isn't privileged information under state confidentiality laws applicable to professionals. Also it is a copy of the court transcript, why not just make a pdf of the transcript itself? (Look for the joke in the humor section that I'm going to post about the monk and the costs of copying 😆 )
But I value your idea of making this simple, and taking the high ground that they defaulted.
It's one thing to have the incredible FG and SEDM knowledge base. It's another thing to apply it effectively to establish my own credibility and maintain that of FG and SEDM. I just want to be careful not to make my response so simplistic that it lacks merit and amounts to no response; or to say anything that I cannot explain with my usual brilliant eloquence. 🙄
I'm thinking…I'm thinking… 😕
Bing,
Thanks for the wakeup call about pro se. I know it means representing oneself, but I was only dimly
aware of the implications (that you are in court representing SOMEONE) and under the court's control.
That's one major misstep to avoid. I'll be reading up on Sui Juris today. And the point about special appearance is well taken. In fact, I think
I am going to write on my response to the summons that this written response is a special appearance to challenge their jurisdiction.
Interestingly, they are using the proper spelling of my name and no TIN after I objected to the last group who wrote.
This raises an interesting question from lambskin's comment
Quote:It doesn't matter how their process was served.If it's not directed to a man to whom the controversy actually involves, the method of service never becomes an
issue, or rather a “point of law” to consider. Proper “service” also needs to be adhered to, but that argument
can't be raised until the issue of “proper parties” is settled first. He has to keep sending them an abatement
regarding the incorrect name until they get it right and they can't procedurally move ahead until they do.
Each “point of law” has to be properly determined before the next one can be raised.
The question is: Is the natural person the proper party? The term 'person' in the supporting statutes they sent
presumably has the statutory meaning of “person” in the Code. Would this mean that they cannot serve a PERSON after
the PERSON has been disowned by the natural Person, and also that they cannot serve the natural person because the statutes
relate to persons as defined? Put another way, can we get them coming and going in showing they have no jurisdiction?
The skeleton of the jurisdictional challenge goes thusly:
1. They attached 26USC Sec. 7602, 7603, 7604, 7605, 7610, as their authority
to issue the summons. But 7601 limits their territorial jurisdiction to “internal revenue districts” which have been confined by (TR 150-02) to the District of Columbia and, in that district to “persons” (which I presume are artificial entities as defined) who may be liable…etc. They have defaulted by refusing to declare that they were operating in a lawful internal revenue district.
They are trolling outside of their territorial jurisdiction for entities, not natural persons (they've used my correct name on the summons).
2. Their summons was not served properly on any entity per 7603(a)…It must be served by hand on a “person” or left at their last known place of residence. It was served via certified mail which is only authorized for service on third party record keepers. so they have summoned the wrong 'person' (Unless Lambskin's point hangs in the background, that the real me is surety for the ARTIFICIAL ME, still in their records [see below for the SSA response to my quitting].
3. The implementing regulation for these statutes [7601ff] is, I believe from my readings at FG and SEDM, 27CFR Sec. 70.11. which is an ATF regulation.
But 1CFR Sec.21.219© says that “each agency shall publish its own regulations in full text.” [But, I believe from my readings on FG and SEDM the IRS and
BATF are one and the same…though they wouldn't want to admit that openly.]
4. 27CFR Sec. 70.11 states what provisions of 26USC are administered and enforced by BATF which are 26USC 4181 (pistols etc.), 4182 (machine guns, etc), of the IRC of 1986 (which may have been repealed [but not an issue to take up in the response])…subchapters F and G of chapter 32 of the Code insofar as they relate to activities administered and enforced with respect to sections 4181 and 4182 of the Code, subtitle E [alcohol, tobacco, and other excises] of the Code and Subtitle F [procedure and administration] of the Code as it relates to any of the foregoing.
As made clear in the GITH, there is no enforcement authority for any other kind of tax…such as a subtitle A income tax.
5. Therefore, they have failed to demonstrate how they assert their jurisdiction over an undetermined proper party for an unnamed tax, the subject of which is unknown. (No subject matter jurisdiction)…for the following reasons…
a. The Secretary has never notified me by personal communication or regulation (as he is required to do by “USC citation here”) that I was liable for (subject to) any tax involving Alcohol, Tobacco or Firearms and required to keep relevant records for his inspection. And…
the Secretary has withheld such notification for good reason…he has not provided copies of applications or other paperwork which document for him that I am involved in any way with these regulated activities to which these statutes (4181, 4182) apply.
Conclusion:
1. They have failed to document facts which makes a case, to which I can respond, that I, either as a natural person, or an artificial entity, am involved in some activity regulated by the Secretary and required to document that activity for his inspection per 7602. Therefore, they have not demonstrated Standing because they have asserted no documented facts to make a case and therefore cannot state a claim for which neither I, a natural person, nor a federal court can grant relief.
2 By the legal authorities enclosed with the summons, the agent and the group manager, have shown they acted outside of their territorial jurisdiction (they admitted that by failing to provide their authority to operate on non-federal land. I'll attach the default letter as an Exhibit showing what they admitted to).
3. They have shown that they have not acted for a legitimate purpose insofar as they did not state what tax was the subject of their summons and for which I as a natural person, or some entity in which I participate, was notified of the requirement to keep relevant records. And the statutes they did provide for their authority related , by the language of 27CFR Sec.70.11, only to firearms and alcohol.
That's about as far as I've gotten.
Sidebar with respect to lambskin's point about SSA.
In 2003 I wrote SSA a letter, which I do not have in front of me, [but I think it might have been modelled on Skinner's letter before I knew about FG], and did not contain either form 521 or 56, which I did not know about then.
In reply, I received a long letter, the first paragraph of which states:
Quote:People cannot voluntarily end their participation in the program. The payment of Social Security tacxes is mandatory, regardless of the citizenship or place of residence of either the employer or the employee. Unless specifically exempt by law, everyone working in the United States is required to pay Social Security taxes. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the SSA, and madatory individual participation. We will not respond further to your correspondence about voluntary participation in the Social Security program.Now after becoming a member of SEDM and reading the scholars of these forums, I know this is a bold faced lie and a denial that First Amendment rights even exist. So, I have requested my original application and when it arrives will submit 521 and 56.
But I continue to get yearly 'good new' about how much money I will get each month if I retire at this age or that age.
I realize the SS# compromises efforts to object to the king's jurisdiction, but there is a record that I have dissociated myself from that franchise and have contributed nothing for nearly a decade. And the false and misleading response from SSA will be the justification for doing it a second time with the proper forms. But, I'll deal with that in the proper forum, though it was relevant here to deal with lambskin's point.
I hope my planned approach to responding to the summons is on the right track of keeping the burden of proving jurisdiction on them and their failure to do so.
Bing, If this approach is not a good sketch of
Quote:Marilyn Monroe's butt cheeksand not worth clinging to, I'd appreciate a heads up [under the First Amendment, of course, and not as legal advice].
Bing, you wrote
Quote:very good video but for Naomi's confusion about needing to save our, ahem,”democracy”.Her cluelessness about something so essential as “what is a democracy”, only affirms that she is part of the problem.
I agree with you about the use of the word democracy and I winced each time she said it. But it didn't ruin her credibility for me. I just substituted “America” each time to prevent myself from dismissing her message out of hand. I got the impression that she had a good working grasp of the problem and is sincerely trying to be part of the solution.
Most Americans, I believe, think we are a democracy (ruled by polls and special interest groups) so her message should come through loud and clear to them (they won't have any cognitive dissonance about America being a Republic). And ironically the message was that the People should act as if we are a Republic and as the Founders intended (she kept referring to the Founders) Americans should take charge of their servants, give them orders, have them rescind bad laws, and push back at the bullies (her word) when they get out of hand.
Given what she said at the beginning of the video about how she was educated to this issue (the ten steps to tyranny), I think she would be amenable to understanding that this is a Republic and not a democracy. She might even be drawn to this site as a source of education, information and influence.
