franklin
Forum Replies Created
Quote:Please tell me….how do I go about finding a lay legal adviser in my area? Is there any kind of database of these advisers? Thanks very much.Look in the mirror 😮 , say “Right!”, then push the “Start Here” button on the home page. Duh!
Admin, you wrote…
Quote:non-prophet organizations.An excellent choice of words to describe a 501c3 commercial enterprise operating under the “color of church”. 🙂
BobT you said,
Quote:Well he can veto unconstitutional legislation, or bills he doesn’t agree with. This is a duty of anyone holding the Office of the President. If he doesn't justly hold the office, Obama should be removed from office. There is substantial evidence to suggest he should be removed from office. We the People should call for a Grand Jury to be set up to review the evidence.These remarks and the solutions you propose display your usual sound thinking.
And, I believe you're points are spot on…if you are talking about the consitutional president, which I believe you are.
In response I would say that OB does indeed justly hold the office of president. Only it is not the organic presidency of the Constitution.
Here is the office that OB holds, and it has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Executive Office of the President, is the name of a profit-making company domiciled at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC. That is how it is listed in Dun & Bradstreet.
Quote:Headquarters EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW, WASHINGTON, DC
Your remarks are directed toward a possible usurper of the constitutional office. But OB does not occupy that constitutional office.
According to D&B, he is the president and CEO of an artificial entity, and foreign-born or not, he is justly occupying that office, because his board of directors, which is NOT We the People, put him in that office. His board of Directors are those who financed his bid for the office.
You cannot use the constitutional process of impeachment to get rid of the CEO of a company. That is why Henry Hyde was told, before the articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton were delivered to the Senate for trial, that there would be no conviction forthcoming.
That is why, when the People were calling for Bush's impeachment, Nancy P3losi, before taking up her duties as speaker, told Diane Sawyer (or one of those no talent unemployable actresses) for very good reasons that “Impeachment is off the table”. You simply cannot impeach a corporate CEO.
Ironically, the Constitution protects the Executive Office of the President and its derring do…because that office has contracts and quasi-contracts with its employees (enfranchised members of We the People), and no State can interfere in the obligations of contracts (Article I, Sec. 10, clause 6) and the supreme court extended that prohibition to the federal government in the Sinking Fund Cases (99 US 700 (1878)).
As the president of a company dealing in and working for profits, OB has only to obey his board, who can remove (not impeach) him at will.
Here is an example of OB responding to his board of directors in the name of profit…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html
OB is using money borrowed in We the People's name to finance offshore drilling in Brazil, but not allowing it offshore in the USA. The company that benefits from the Executive Office of the President, Inc. is Petrobras which has George Soros, one of OB's directors, as a major stockholder…
And if you look further, none of this oil will run the cars of We the People, but will go to China…
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-02/21/content_7499576.htm
OB is running a profit making company, not a constitutional republic.
To concentrate on OB as the constitutional president, legitimately or not, is to miss what is going on and what might be done about it.
Impeachment is off the table.
Arguments and demonstrations, lawsuits in the federal courts looking for constitutional answers to corporate profit-seeking activity, provide the perfect smoke screen for the corporate shenanigans that are really taking place.
We the People can just say NO to a constitutional president and We the People can just say NO to a corporate president if either one demands that we enter into commerce and, for example, buy health insurance.
NO is the answer, not impeachment.
And the answer is not federal court rulings, they are all corporations as well. If you look up in D&B US Supreme Court, you will see that it is “Also trading as Supreme Court” and its headquarters are the SC building in DC.
If Bachman was really sharp, she would blow the whistle on the corporate nature of the presidency, and the Congress too, with the same candor as Ron Paul keeps blowing the whistle on the Federal Reserve, Inc.
pgb,
Good on ya. Carry on. 🙂
- Quote:That was nothing but a little attempt at satire on my part. I didn't really mean to imply that he is innocent of the allegations.
Whew!!! You had me worried there for a bit, neo.
Nice guys like yourself need to understand that if you're going to skewer a government official with satire, it has to have a scorpion's tail in the word mix. Otherwise “a little attempt at satire” will come off, as it did, as “WTF this guy can't be serious”. 😮
So, neo, this is not legal advice, but get in touch with your inner scorpion and practice, practice, practice.
She is a sharp lady allright.
However, she seems to think that the de facto president can veto this, turn back that, push for repeal, even of his anti-health care bill.
She does not seem to understand that he can do none of those things.
He didn't initiate them, and he cannot modify or void them.
He is told what to say and what to do (mostly “go take a vacation”). And he has no authority from his handlers to dismantle any of it.
The OED would love to see 16,000 more IRS agents from the Treasury Department of Puerto Rico provided for by the anti-health care bill, and he better not interfere with any of it if he has even an ounce of savvy.
It is not complaining and passively waiting and hoping for the WH messiah to undo his wrongdoing, but the active People simply saying NO, in whatever form that takes.
The People bear ultimately responsiblity for the demise of this country, and only they have the authority and duty to return it to proper government (according to the Declaration of Independence).
pgb, you wrote…
Quote:Could anyone give possible suggestions or opinions to correct a 1099-R information return from distribution from a 401k?Two things…
1. Despite your disclaimer below, you are indeed asking for advice by seeking suggestions on how to correct (do you mean disavow as hearsay?) a distribution from a 401K plan, which is solidly under the jurisdiction of the IRS and its rules and regulations.
2. If you're trying to assert that the 1099-R is hearsay, the canceled check from the distribution is not; it probably has your signature on the back. If it was a direct deposit, it shows up on your bank statement, and if you wrote checks on the distribution, etc., etc. The distribution was certainly not made in cash, but even then you would have had to sign a receipt. In some tangible way you gave your consent and accepted the distribution from an IRS authorized privileged account. When you sought the privilege you consented to the rules.
If you're trying to make a case that the funds in the 401K are not gross income from a trade or business you'll be mired in a contradiction.
If your work is not from a “trade or business” which provides you with gross income, then a 401K is entirely unnecessary because non-trade or business income is not the subject of federal income taxation. In fact, opening a tax-shelter like a 401K is prima facie evidence that you do have gross income from a trade or business and you are simply looking for a better tax result for those funds in the account.
What exactly are you trying to correct?
neo, you said…
Quote:I wouldn't be so quick to indict Justice Thomas.Perhaps he knows his wife's “salary” really didn't constitute a “salary,” but rather, personal payments. Maybe she is a “nonresident alien” and her payments were neither “United States” sourced nor “effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.”
Nice try, neo, but you don't get a prize. 😛
There is a vast difference between explaining something and explaining it away. Your response attempts to explain it away, with the effect of putting Thomas above the federal laws to which he is subject.
Thomas himself is quoted as saying that he “inadvertently omitted” [implying that he should not have omitted] spousal income from as far back as 1989 “due to a misunderstanding of filing instructions.”
Nowhere does he even suggest, not even a hint, that his wife's income was not gross income from a “trade or business” and not reportable by him on his disclosure form as non-investment income.
Thomas also tries to explain his omission away because the poor scholar didn't understand the filing instructions. 😆 😆 😆 But he claims to understand the Constitution 😆 😆 😆 Do you think he wears loafers because he doesn't understand how to make a bow with a shoelace? 😆 😆 😆
His attempt to explain away his falsification of his financial statement is as far-fetched as is yours.
It is understandable for a government employee to fudge, lie, deceive, shirk personal responsibility, and even commit crimes under federal law. That's their job description. That's what they're paid to do.
What is not so understandable is for a scholarly member like yourself to give your constructive consent 😡 to a documented violation of law by mentally sweeping Thomas's alleged criminal behavior under the carpet based on some incredible fantasy that just maybe, perhaps, possibly he might be secretly married to a non-card-carrying, bona-fide non-resident alien. 😆 😆 😆
Your position is especially curious since Thomas himself implies that he should have included the income on his disclosure form but inadvertently failed to do so. Maybe he was too busy with more important constitutional issues to comply with the laws to which he is a subject.
To repeat what you said…
Quote:I wouldn't be so quick to indict Justice Thomas.Actually, he should be indicted quickly (an indictment is not a conviction) just as the other referenced federal official has been, and in like fashion, await his speedy trial for a “guilty” or “not guilty” verdict.
If there were more quick indictments of alleged federal criminals, the American Republic would not have turned into a corporation owned by anti-God socialist foreigners.
I think that the obsessive compulsive lawmakers go into the lawmaking industry because the perks are so profitable. 😎
Nancy P3l0si had the entire US Military at her command when she wanted chocolate covered strawberries during one of her flights on the luxury military plane put at her disposal. It was, after all, her birthday. 😛
The liquor bill for the old lush was over a hundred thousand dollars :wacko: for the time she and her friends, family and donators used the aircraft. And the strawberries were only one of her perks.
She enjoyed a two day work week. Can you imagine what she would have manufactured if she worked a 40 hour week. 😮 🙁
They manufacture “laws” because that's their business, their product. They have to show the DF constituents who sent them to the legislatures that they are doing “something”. And the DF constituents say “she's doing a good job” :huh: .
Can you imagine electing someone to the legislature who did absolutely nothing 🙂 …rarely shows up 🙂 , misses every vote 🙂 , introduces no bills 🙂 , sits on no committees 🙂 , cannot be bribed because she does not vote 🙂 , nada 🙂 . She would not be reelected.
It would be great if the DF constituents all got together and donated a million dollars a year to send such candidates for office to the legislature. What a huge saving it would ultimately be for the constituents and their children and their grandchildren. How dear a chamber full of such Godly legislators would be to us :wub: .
Quote:What is needed is a reformation in law and a return to the simplicity of law in God’s Word—and a limitation of government by constitutional restraint.Satan understands humans very well and is clever enough to make evil appear true, beautiful and Godly. Remember the strawberry-sucking, boozing-it-up NP said that OB “Is a gift from God” 🙁 . (Which is not to imply that JMcC would have been a better alternative).
Satan offers a chocolate covered strawberry and is elected sovereign. 😆 Go figure.
However, the Scriptures tell us that God has never really understood human nature very well. He offered the Israelites FREEDOM FROM SLAVERY for heavens sake (Ex 3:8,6:6). And they whined with buyer's remorse and said: “Leave us alone! Let us serve the Egytians!” (Ex 14:11-12). 🙁 Go figure.
Now Ms. Admin, exactly what perks is God offering that can compete with:
immunity from all laws (remember B@rney Fr@nk's 'husband' running a male prostitution service from their basement [he's an accessory before during and after])
+ a huge salary
+ benefits
+ a 2-day work week
+ a luxury military aircraft to fly you and 200 of your best friends anywhere you want
+ an enormous liquor cabinet
+ chocolate covered strawberries (or chocolate truffles if you're allergic to strawberries)
+ all paid for by other people, their children and their grandchildren unto the third and fourth generation.
And all that is required of these enslaved legislators is that they obey their masters (which is not to say the People), who own them body and soul.
Well??? <_<
- Quote:I will have to research 'setting up a motions hearing'
This is information not advice.
You can move the court while actually in court and the judge can rule then and there (or ignore you in which case you'll have to repeat yourself in case she was hard of hearing or being stubborn or constructively malicious or embarrassed by the motion).
You can also move the court in writing…which you would file with the clerk. The written motion needs a hearing otherwise it just sits in the file (a corrupt judge will deny the motion without reading it, [there's case law about how appeals courts deal with unaddressed motions]).
Courts operate differently about motion hearings. Some have “Motions Day” where motions are heard for everyone the clerk scheduled for that motions day. You'd have to set the motion for hearing on a date the clerk provides for you IF YOU ASK HER TO.
Setting a motion for hearing is just a calendar issue, nothing fancy about it. Your rules of court should explain the procedure in your jurisdiction.
Thanks for the heads up :ph34r:
What she is talking about is “positive thinking” in quotes, meaning it is a parody of positive thinking.
The parody sees “positive thinking” as an absolute. Think and Grow Rich, the title of a book, is an example.
Real positive thinking is not absolute, it sees POSSIBILITY rather than dogmatic absolutes.
Edison kept the possibility of a light bulb in mind while he failed thousands of times to produce it.
But with each 'failure' he was educating himself and learning how not to make a light bulb.
Real positive thinking sees possibility, then takes educated action to produce the desired result.
A skyscraper doesn't appear just because someone sends out positive thoughts about it.
The EDUCATED architect and engineer tinkered with the thought until it became reality.
Thoughts without educated action produce nothing.
Thoughts with educated action do indeed become reality.
The evidence is everywhere around us.
Here's an example of Positive Thinking in its right sense…
Is it POSSIBLE to be free of federal slavery?
Let's take relevant action and push the START HERE button and get EDUCATED.
Then let's take EDUCATED ACTION and resign from the SS franchise.
“Positive Thinking” = results.
Real Positive Thinking -> a sense of POSSIBILITY -> EDUCATION -> EDUCATED ACTION = Thought becomes REALITY.
“Positive Thinking” is a no-brainer in the truest sense
Real Positive Thinking engages the brain to give shape and reality to an ephemeral idea.
- Quote:Question for ya, where do you think I would find the best source of info on drafting great discovery petitions (aka motions)?
I'm not sure what a “great” discovery motion or petition is. One moves or petitions the court, not the opposing attorney.
Discovery just asks for information, admissions, books and records, the answers to questions, depositions and the like, in simple one subject, one verb sentences.
One problem that people who write in legal forums sometimes have appears to be getting their opponent to respond timely and on point. The other problem is they just file a motion and then fail to set it for hearing.
There is a lawyer who has a website that addresses what to do when your opponent obstructs discovery (among other things). If you look for litigation resources on this website and sedm you will most likely find it. Or just google “what is a great discovery motion or petition” and see what happens.
So the issue isn't doing “great” discovery motions. It's actually getting your opponent to comply timely and on point with your requests.
Just a thought.
If you're going to appeal, the written record comprises the entire matter for the appellate court.
Your docs said that you would be able to see the judge's oath of office.
Wouldn't you want a verified copy of that to be in the record and not just in your memory.
I'm just wondering if you say to an appeals court something like “the judge violated her oath of office” what they can do if that document cannot be read by the appellate judges.
Just curious as to what you think about that. <_<
Both documents say it is unlawful and punishable to copy or photograph the two documents.
But there is no statutory reference and/or CFR citation. So, whether it's really a Notice of breaking any specific law might be a fact finding task for a jury.
It seems you would have to make up your own mind about how to handle the questions you raise. And you may have answered them just by raising them.
For example, defining terms is something that non-resident aliens have to do all the time.
Sometimes people define the terms by submitting a modified form.
Sometimes they submit the modifications later and bring the agency up to date.
Rescinding the SS-5 application is an example of correcting the record after the fact.
If you are a card-carrying social security beneficiary, you may have to consider your status from other perspectives as well, not just in relation to the two forms you've provided.
The point I'm making is that your questions need to be put in the larger context of whether and how you are franchised to the jurisdiction of the United States, Inc. There has to be consistency in the record.
You can't define terms your way for one government relationship and then consent to their definitions in other contexts.
Considering this point about your overall relationship to USA,Inc. should help you decide how to proceed on the specific questions you raised in this thread.
