lambskin
Forum Replies Created
Hey All,
Glad to see another fine topic being revived/continued by the best of minds our nation has to offer. This is undoubtedly what must be done to assist the bewildered and “shell shocked”. Let's all “Keep up the fight” because it is definitely working, as simply evidenced by the appearance of juu1k0ry and the other 1,000+ members in this forum.
So, what about the basic issues raised by juu1k0ry in this thread?
The first issue juu raised was that of: Courts (law) of Admiralty. That was obviously settled primarily by the responses of Admin.
The second issue would be about: The “incorrectness” or “impropriety” of our court system as set-up by the boys in Washington. This is an inappropriate assessment of the situation. The correct assessment would be (as juu has discovered) that of jurisdiction. The U.S. corporate courts are dispensing decisions well aligned to the jurisprudence or principles of an Admiralty proceedings in their courts; by this I mean – it's their “corporation” and they can make whatever rules they want as long as those rules apply to them and them alone – therefore, the problem lies with the “man”, not with the “corporate court”. Don't contract with them and stay out of their forums and the problem for the “man” ceases. Don?t grant them ?jurisdiction?. When the “man” stays out, he is free to use the laws of this nation and the Constitution to get the “corporate actors” to obey the law as it was intended to be used, to keep these actors in “check”. This means that the “man” has to make sure (as Sonik expressed) that the courts (when acting in the public capacity) are deciding on, and enforcing, Admiralty laws properly… in “maritime” controversies and not on the land that the sovereign men and women of this nation live on.
In Admin.'s responses, he raised another issue: Improving the FG site and/or simplifying the fundamental/foundational knowledge to alleviate the hardship of securing a good defense. The only thing that comes to mind in that respect is the fact that almost all of the participants in this forum agree (by virtue of the content of certain threads) that knowing the “Law” is paramount.
My suggestion would be to put a statement on the “Home Page” that would immediately grab the attention of all visitors who have been led here because of some controversy to which they are a party. Anything in the light of “IF YOU FOUND US BECAUSE YOU'RE IN LITIGATION – GO HERE FIRST” should do nicely. Put it in large, bold, red lettering between the maroon colored “button bar” (SEARCH – LINKS – FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS -etc.) and the pink colored “WATCH OUR MOVIE” box. Something on the “Yes” or “No” format, or rather, something that follows the “If this is your situation, then go here.” or “If such-n-such has happened, then do this.” format. This is how any basic analytical software programming format is written and enables the user to reach the desired result of the programs' intent… some form of resolve or a solution. If this were done, the warning/suggestion should enable the individual to click on it and take the party/viewer immediately to the “Jurisdiction” section found under item 10.1 in the “Law and Government” Topic area. If the party/viewer were to go there, they should find an actual description/definition of the word “jurisdiction”, not just the relation of the word to an area of law or its meaning in respect to territorial boundaries.
Why? Because jurisdiction, i.e., spoken oath, is THE foundational/fundamental element of all law, or rather, the sovereigns' bond is his word…”I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” That's about as basic as it gets. Well, how can anybody understand jurisdiction if they have no idea as to what it is that they're swearing an oath to? They have to be enabled to understand that it?s either what they?ve said or done that has given the court/judge a reason to “bind” the man to the judges' decision or the enforcement that follows.
I guess what I'm trying to emphasize is the fact that we all know that a lot of people come to FG because they're in trouble or are feeling the affects of corporate/governmental pressure and need help. Well, give it to 'em. Directly. Don't beat around the bush with the “spoon fed” issue here. Just give 'em an immediate level of relief that takes care of the pressing matter first and then let 'em contemplate their faults/mistakes later. Give 'em the basics, something that will help them defend themselves better as their situation progresses. Don?t leave them hunting all over the Topics on the Home Page or in the Forum in search of a solution and sifting through the myriad of information that has nothin? to do with their predicament. That only allows the ill effects of the adversary?s devices to eliminate another potential advocate of Liberty by way of wasting the potential advocates? limited time.
Take them on a guided, step-by-step learning experience that gets them to where they?re going, e.g. – ?Is this a tax issue?? ?If ?yes?, click here. If ?no?, click here.? ?Have you received a Notice of Levy?? ?If ?yes?, click here. If ?no?, click here.? etc? How hard could this be with all of the legal software that?s available on the open market? It?s obvious that the people behind this site possess the knowledge to do so. Would doing so be giving legal advice? No, it?s simply supplying educational information. Personally, I don?t believe, nor can I perceive how, anybody has or could break the law by telling another man what to do if they?ve been legally attacked. I?m still trying to discover how it is that this notion ever came to be in the first place.
Lastly, juu asked: So why even go to court? Aren't we doomed to failure the minute we show up? How can we defend ourselves? Even if we have reasonable belief in our tax liability from the Constitution – Statutes at Large – and Supreme Court Rulings… if Admiralty Law reigns supreme in their court? what is keeping the Judge from taking everything through Admiralty law – higher than Common Law? In the name of the King/State/Sovereign?
Well, if juu1k0ry has read this far, or any of this, I think it?d be best to continue that aspect of this thread in the place where it bears the most relevance and will do potential viewers the most good – in the ?Administrative hearings and court litigation? forum.
Ya know? we should all give some credibility to the Professors? (that?s Bing for the newbies) proposal and apply the essentials of it to the situations in which those essentials best apply. What proposal is that? It?s the one he posted in this very forum in a topic on ?What Happened to Justice? and it goes like this:
Quote:I will tell you “what now.”We need a Master Strategic Plan that is broken down by region, then by state, and then by county. We need to assess where we are, what our goals should be and what they are, and we need to put in place systems that allow us to track our progress towards achieving our mission. Each Strategic Plan for every Union state, should feed into and be consistent with the USA Master Plan. And every county Plan should likewise be consistent with the respective state Plan.
What now?
We need to identify our Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats,(SWOT) and then prepare a series of SWOT Profiles that will better leverage our Strengths to help us seize our Opportunities, while minimizing and isolating our weaknesses and countering our environmental Threats. And the Leaders need to do this SWOT Profiling continuously and constantly take the pulse of events. And we must be brutally honest with ourselves and forgo any pie-in-the-sky stuff. Focus on achievable, measurable results and hold People accountable.
What now?
First and foremost, the Tax Honesty Movement is way too fractured and too widely dispersed to be nearly as effective as it could be. And because of this, we lack a coherent Strategic Plan that lays out our grand strategy and sub-strategies, as well as important operational tactics to be deployed to achieve the over-arching strategy. Yes, it is true that WTP put their Strategic Plan(if one can call it that) on the Web, but I am not so certain that that was a good thing to do for any number of reasons which I will not discuss here. There is a time and place for organizational transparency.
WTP is not the Center of the Universe in the Tax Honesty Movement, and the sooner folks stop looking to Bob Schulz and WTP to carry the full load, the quicker we can move the Agenda foreward individually and collectively. It is hardly fair to put all the pressure on Bob and WTP. We all have to step up and do our part by continually writing affidavits to the IRS's and DOJ Tax Division's top lawyers, and educating them about the Truth. And we must also continue educating our friends and relatives. Spread the Truth and move forward with courage, character and integrity at all times.
What now?
I will tell you something else, all of us in the Forum should know that our own Author spends a ton of his time and his own money making sure the opinions and political speech on this website is available to you all. So if you can, feel free to make whatever donations you can to the Author, be it money, research assistance, time identifying and proofreading materials, whatever you can do to make the website better and lessen the demands placed on Author, we should do.
What now?
Well, we sorely need more effective leadership and structure in the Tax Honesty Movement, one that is less confrontational with the US Government and instead, bypasses and outflanks them and uses scarce resources to educate at the grass roots level, especially the nation's Law Schools, Medical Schools, and MBA Programs. We need to better focus and concentrate our educational outreach forces to help educate these young adults. We are in a generational conflict for the hearts and minds of the future leaders of American Society, and the sooner we recognize that this is a decades long struggle of educational outreach, the sooner we will become more effective.
What now?
If we are to prevail, we will do so by grass roots outreach at the high school, college, and at the graduate and professional school levels. We need to intercept these folks and get them the education that they so sorely need, so that they can make informed choices about whether they are lawfully required to pay income taxes to the IRS. In this regard, we must educate them about the “Trade or Business Scam”, the critical importance of Citizenship and Domicile, and about the Nonresident Alien Position.”
What now?
We need to create our own newspaper and have more of a web presence that is capable of making sustained footprints over wider geographic areas. And we need to design and create weblogs targeting young adults who are college age through age 34.
What now?
We need to better use and apply the principles of business management, group psychology, and sociology, to push and lead the Tax Honesty Movement forward and to not wait around for others to show leadership or to lead the way. Be pro-active, not reactive. In the words of the great Peter Drucker, we should all think and act like “Executives”.
What now?
We need to identify a core group of people, who are well spoken, have commanding stage presence, and help them locate a cadre of wealthy angel investors, who would be willing to fund “educational missions” into each of the several states. These missions should not be announced to the masses in advance, but instead, the covert Tax Honesty Teams should, for example, hold town hall meetings in key locales, especially in high schools and colleges, and distribute info and facts, BUT NOT SELL ANYTHING and NOT ask for donations. We have to EDUCATE, EDUCATE, and EDUCATE!! Each mission in each state, if funding is available, should last 30 days and should be intensive. we have to give the People the facts and tools so they can hold their servant government accountable.
Then, TEAM A takes a respite, and TEAM B leads the next educational mission into the next state. Repeat as necessary. We systematically attack (and here, I mean attack with educational materials and facts only, I DO NOT MEAN A physical attack), county by county, and focusing on core high schools and colleges. But way before we can embark on any of that, we need to identify folks who are willing to work the phones and quietly set up the meetings and build the logistics train in advance.
WTP's efforts this past summer were important, commendable and noteworthy, but I suspect that WTP over extended themselves and thus, never finished their Tour, because of inadequate prior planning and their inability to manage the logistics train or to identify in advance the volunteers needed to pull it off.
Now, I recall early last summer the WTP Announced publicly that there would be two major events planned for Washington, D.C. in Sept and Oct 2006, and it is obvious that BOTH those events will never come to pass. This is just the latest example of WTP over promising and then under delivering. This type of poor planning alienates prospective angel investors and financial supporters and raises doubts as to whether WTP has the Managment ability to do what it says it is going to do. Not good for any organization. What we should be doing consistently is under promising and then over delivering. We should never bite off more than we can chew because doing so undermines our credibility internally and externally.
This past summer, WTP traveling with all that production equipment was, just as I suspected and predicated it would be, a great hinderance and restricted their degrees of freedom of movement, so to speak, thus cutting short the important WTP nationwide tour and leaving countless folks greatly disappointed. It was a noble effort that fell short of its goals.
What now?
We need to do a better job identifying, befriending, and coopting disgruntled present IRS and DOJ employees and ex-employees. We need an INTEL system set up so that we can better track senior folks who are hired by the IRS and Tax Division by doing stuff as simple as tracking press releases and noting transfers and job appointments, etc.
What now?
We have to continue to keep pushing back the corrupt U.S. Government and equally corrupt IRS, that continues to mislead and lie to the American People.
In this regard, we must encourage individual Citizens to write affidavits to the DOJ and the IRS attorneys, setting forth important facts and requesting them to correct the facts if they can. We must, individually, stay on the offensive in this regard and pursue all non-violent means at our disposal to educate top IRS and DOJ attorneys.
And we have to continue grass roots education and organizational efforts.
And we have to gain access as guest speakers at high schools and colleges and expose the essential elements about the Bill of Rights and the USA Constitution, and the fact that the US Supreme Court has said that American Citizens have a Constitutionally protected Right to work for a living and that they also said that the Government (IRS) may not tax the exercise of one's Constitutional Rights.
What now?
We must greatly simplify Our Message while bolstering our credibility by relying upon and aligning ourselves with prior US Supreme Court decisions.
We must use and apply both direct and indirect methods to accomplish our strategies and goals in a non-violent fashion and to help restore the Unalienable Rights to all American Citizens, by teaching folks about the true nature of their fundamental Rights and helping them get up the personal courage to confront their private sector employers and the IRS and to stand up for themselves and assert their Constitutionally protected Natural Rights to Liberty and Property.
That?s pretty good stuff folks! Whether applied to tax issues, legal issues, family issues, employment issues, or any other area of our lives the “corporate actors” try to intrude upon. This, of course, begs the question ?What then?? Well, who knows? The only thing that is certain is that somebody is going to do something eventually and, whether it is sooner or later, the outcome of those actions will facilitate the next round of volleys and possibly produce some better results for those who wish to remain free. To choose the manner in which their actions affect others in a positive way as it relates to their freedoms, to the ability to teach what those freedoms mean, and to what a man can achieve if those freedoms are kept intact.
I can barely begin to fathom the amount of time and effort Admin. puts into his endeavors, but I?m sure it?s substantial and perhaps the above suggestion will help in some way if he were to use that suggestion. I am certainly in no position to apply it because I don?t have the access to the tools to accomplish it, nor do I possess the techno-skills to do so even if the access were made available. We all have to do our part even if the part we play is something as miniscule as making just such a suggestion.
G&P
Lambskin
Hey Admin,
That's almost as “pants pi…n' funny” as the Professors' topic about the guy who wanted to tax whores and pimps.
I truly enjoyed it. Thanks for keepin' the “lighter” side of the forum alive.
G&P,
Lambskin
Hey all,
Let's not forget that all those men which we all so often quote are dead and that the most superior quote ever uttered on earth, the one-and-only quote that still stands true for every man on the planet, because the Author is still alive, was – “You shall know the 'Truth' and the 'Truth' shall set you free.
Keep that one, fundamental rule in your mind and you'll never have anything to worry about no matter what anybody, dead or alive, says or has ever said.
Gentlemen; that means that once you've been set free, you're free for good, and there's nothin' ever gonna change it. “THE MAN” don't go back on His word.
The premise for this is so simple – these guys (or at least the majority of 'em)calling themselves our government have absolutely no clue as to what this world (or at least our lifetime being spent in it) is about and everything they do, no matter what approach they take to accomplishing their tasks, is self destructive and doomed to fail.
G&P,
Lambskin
Ed,
You're in an administrative court acting in a judiciable cause known as Equity. Equity covers contracts and negotiable instruments and is a subset of Admiralty law.
This taxing body is trying to enforce its equitable rights based upon an “Adhesion” contract that you entered into voluntarily.
The only way you can win in this court is to get them to admit to fraud, release you from the contract, or prove that you're not the “Party” that they're assuming you to be, or rather, that you're not the actual “Party” bound to the contract.
In an “Equitable” dispute being heard in “Admiralty” you're never “out of remedies” and the case is never “closed” until somebody gets paid.
The judge in your case is neither permitted to render a decision (of any kind) based on opinion, nor is he permitted to move, or transfer, the case to a different “court” unless he has documented, certifiable, and proven “facts” and “evidence” that this matter doesn't belong in, or permitted to be heard in the court it is presently in, which happens to be his court.
The matter that stands before this judge is a “controversy” that was put before this judge by the IRS. The IRS has documentation that was voluntarily “signed” by you as the “Party” to the suit. You obviously said (at some point in your life) that you agreed to be the “PERSON” responsible for paying the “tax” that was due on the “income” that was reported to them on the “documents” that they filed into the court as evidence.
If that “documentation” was filed as evidence into a “court” of “Equity” being heard in the jurisdiction of “Admiralty”, then you're being held accountable for a “tax” being “levied” against a “negotiable instrument” voluntarily “agreed to” under “contract” and the only way you can prove that you're not the actual “Party” to the “contract” is to name, or “place” the actual “defendant” (the one who is actually bound to the contract) before the court.
Grace and peace,
Lambskin
Hey all,
This may get poor reception, but there really is no need to discuss this beyond one point, and one point alone.
The answer to WTP's dilemma is simple… make a law that says that “Government” must respond.
G&P
Lambskin
Hey Bing,
Fine work…. Fine, fine work. I'm gonna use these quotes as often as I can.
Everybody should take exceptional note of the fact that the judges are to determine the court's jurisdiction even if the question hasn't been raised by either of the parties at suit.
G&P,
Lambskin
Hey all,
First: I'd like to thank Admin for another great update.
Second: Welcome Eliot.
Third: To remind all FG advocates to set up a trust and use the W-8ben with their employers; and,
Fourth: Bring everybody's attention to Mr. Matthews' remarks about “abusive trusts”, the comments start on page 15 of the manual.
In his reference to the types of “abusive trusts” Mr. Matthews directs the reader tohttp://www.treas.gov/irs/ci. When you go there, and click on http://www.irs.gov in the last sentence, it takes you to th I.R.S. home page and if you enter the words “abusive trusts” in the search box at the top of the page, it brings up various articles. If you click on the first selection – “Abusive Trust Tax Evasion Schemes” – it takes you to a “table of contents”. I exhort everyone to read all of this “Scheme Toolkit” content because it, at the very least, proves to be very informative.
Item # 9. concerns “Special Types of Trusts” and when you go there and read about the “Pure Trust” and the “Illinois Land Trust” this is where the I.R.S. makes certain admissions, albeit ambiguously. All one needs to do, in order to confirm the lawfulness of these so-called “abusive trust”, is to pay attention to what they've read and then put two-and-two together. I'll emphasize a few key items in the body of the definitions of these two types of trusts and then let you guys see if you can locate the the part of the “Toolkit” that relieves you as an American “state national”.
Pure Trust
The term “pure trust” is not used in the Internal Revenue Code. Whatever the name of the arrangement, however, the taxation of the entity must comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. The requirements are based on the economic reality of the arrangement, not its nomenclature. If the pure trust meets the definition of a trust, then it would be taxed under simple, complex, or grantor trust rules, depending on the trust instrument.
Illinois Land Trust
In Illinois, and in five other states, legislation has been enacted that creates a special type of trust, commonly referred to as an “Illinois Land Trust”. These trusts are designed to house real estate within a grantor trust and provide limited access to grantor or beneficiary information contained in the trust instrument or known to the trustee. Once a land trust is established, the ability to trace property transactions becomes limited as state law establishes the right of the trustee not to disclose the true owner of the property or those with a beneficial interest. The “land trust” has no special distinction in the Internal Revenue Code and would be a simple, complex, or grantor trust depending on the terms of the trust instrument. Filing requirements would depend on the type of trust.
G&P,
Lambskin
Reb,
I have a suggestion for you. Compare two copies of your state constitution; one should be prior to 1960, the other should be the current one, and see if you don't find any changes that might raise a few questions. Then do the same for your state's Criminal Code; it should have been changed around 1960 – 61 as well, and ask yourself why these changes were necessary if we are to be free men and women living in a free Republic.
Has the “criminal” population amongst the general masses increased to a proportion that would warrant such changes? Does our government really believe that the general population is so incapable of providing for themselves that all of these constitutional changes were necessary? Or is it that there really is something to be said in the affirmative for the truth; that when men and women are put in the position of authority, with ample resources at their disposal, they will gradually do things to try to place themselves above or beyond the status of their constituents?
This forum only asks that it's participants express their views and information in relation to the topics FG has put forward. The participants may do so in any manner they wish, as long as they don't break the rules of the forum and Team Law's forum is the same. Team Law specifies that they will not do your research for you because they feel that doesn't do you any good and I concur. We are free people who should believe in laws that promote that freedom and if you don't see that the laws of this nation have worked, and are continually being enacted, to impede our freedoms, then you have certainly been permitted to express your views here.
So, in light of, and in line with, the “ideal” of that freedom – claim your law. Just don't harm or damage anybody while doing it because if others come to the realization that the laws you're supporting have detrimental effect on them, then you'll have to answer to them.
G&P
Lambskin
Scot,
I think I understand your conundrum. Yes, 14th amendment citizens are statutorily created citizens; or rather, they're citizenship is of a lesser, or different, status than those of a “national”. The 14th amendment was supposedly written to guarantee equal rights under the laws to “non-nationals” – such as aliens, immigrants or slaves – and their children born in any of the several states.The domicile/citizenship document does not claim 14th amendment status but refutes it. Men and women born in this nation are not “citizens” of the “United States” – the “Corporation” or the “Business” – but are sovereign “Nationals”, meaning we are men and women who “live” on the land within the coordinates or imaginary boundaries of any one of the states. The body, or corpus, of people that now run our government are are a “Corporation” that believe they own everything that you and I possess and use a “contract” or “trust agreement” – via the SSN and accompanying SSA – to adhere us to any of the rules they make.
The domicile/citizenship document is a “Public Notice” refuting, or exempting us from, this “status” or those “rules”. This “Corporation” was formed, instituted, or created by, under, or through an “Act” or piece of legislation commonly known as the “District of Columbia Act”. This piece of legislation was entirely unnecessary because the “Constitution of the United States of America” – a legal document containing all of the foundational “Laws” of our nation – had already established the body of our government and the place in which it was to conduct it's proceedings – or it's “seat” – and all of the other areas that any of the several states – meaning the people of those states – would grant it permission to occupy for any lawful purposes. The “U.S.” – and it's sub-Corporations or “Agencies” known as “State of XXX” have overstepped or ignored their lawful capacity by creating these additional “contracts” with the People because such contracts are no more necessary than the “D. of C. Act” was.
As elected officials, they already had the authority and/or duty to perform the requirements or mandates we make, impose upon, or desire of them; none of which should allow them to enforce any statute or rule that abridges, or infringes upon, our Rights.
In law, or from a legal standpoint, you have to let the adverse “party” know where you “stand” or the “adversary” will assume you are “acting” or “functioning” as they want you to. Under the rules of the “Civil Law” – a Roman concoction – the “State” is the “Ruler” and the “citizens” are the “subjects” and this is how our “adversaries” – the “U.S.” and “State of XXX” – sees us today. We – the People – are enemies of the “State” (12 Statutes at Large 319) and are considered by them to be under the authority of the “Caesar” (the President) and his “dictates” (Executive Orders) being enforced by his “legions” (the Military). When you “Notice” them you're “making a record” of your “Law” or claiming the laws which you choose to abide by. They know, or are supposed to know, that when an “American national” does so, that person is claiming their citizenship is, or should be, recognized as existing “without”, or outside of or extricable to, the “U.S.” or “State of XXX” corpus. You're basically saying – “I avoid the contract.” or “Your contract is void.” – because it was done or
made by fraud.
No “court” needs to “decide” this; or rather, this issue doesn't need to be “heard” in a courtroom, because you have settled the matter under the “Supreme Law” of the land, which is your “Dictate”. This “stands” true or is “Lawfully” evidenced by 10th Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.” Since the “Offices” of government in the several states are no longer occupied by “lawfully” elected people, then the only remaining “powers” of authority lies in “We the People”. Whatever you, as a “free-born” man – an “American national” – claim as “Law”, is the law which you abide by and it must be recognized by them.
Now, if that helps, go claim your law.
G&P,
Lambskin
Author #2,
You're correct, thank you.
I wandered off the topic when I brought up the “jurisdictional” issue. The Fed rules do apply to all sovereign Americans as long as the procedures one follows are those that have been laid down by lawfully elected and/or appointed officials and are being applied in the correct venue and/or jurisdiction (meaning the territorial jurisdiction). The original Judiciary Act is a good example of proper procedure.
Many of the procedures now being applied in the courtrooms of Our nation today, whether federal or local, should be adhered to. The problems start when the rules are “bent” or biased in favor of one of the parties or mis-applied or ill-interpreted by the referee. Those rules, or the refs, gotta go.
G&P,
Lambskin
Reb,
Have you ever read the District of Columbia Act, or are you just anti-accuracy and truthfulness?
Claiming or endorsing something that can't be verified or proven should be considered a sign of an unstable mind as well, or at least brought to the attention of the speaker. Thank God trigger-pullin' aint contagious!
BobT12,
Muuuuch better.
“Let the trial begin.” (how do you guy's insert those “Quote” boxes?)
Amen.
G&P,
Lambskin
Bing,
Excellent suggestion, but which “Constitution” is being attributed to his statement; the original or the one the corporate U.S. created, to which is he bound by oath, and in what capacity?
Only his direct response can vindicate him; and if he were to respond in affirmation to the original, then who would be in error?
This is not an attempt to contradict the premise of the suggestion, but merely proffered to induce those who would take such action to fully inform their friends and loved ones as to what is truly transpiring within the walls of Our federal, state and local institutions. In that respect, I'll offer this:
Unarguably, there's no doubt in the mind's of this forum's participants as to which he was alluding to, but the real problem stems from the People's ignorance. Let's bring 'em up to date correctly.
G&P
Lambskin
Bing,
You are absolutely, 100% correct my good man; anybody who uses the F.R.C.P. is steppin' into a minefield. I know you are more than likely aware of the following, but others may not be, so:
This is why one must issue an abatement in any proceeding one may encounter from any of the “corporate” Federal, State, or local “administrative bodies”. An abatement, whether produced on their Court papers or on paperwork generated on one's own, is a foreign pleading in response to their administrative rules. It's an answer from “without” their jurisdiction and thereby bars every means they may try to use to enforce their “law”, which is foreign to every sovereign man and woman.
If one makes any claim to being a “citizen” of the “United States” or any “State of XXX” or cites any Federal or State rule out of the State or Federal codes in an abatement, they'll “presume” or “assume” (doesn't matter to them which of these words that you use) that the man or woman is submitting to their administrative jurisdiction.
For all intents and purposes, “jurisdiction” means: oath spoken, an oral swearing of allegiance. So, when one uses certain words, phrases or terms, when presenting oneself, either physically or by extrinsic communication, they hang themselves.
We, the men and women of “The United States of America”, are NOT citizens or persons, we are JUST that; sovereign men and women that abide by God's laws and any other rules of conduct that We permit Our legislatures to enact. Any legislation that doesn't stem from the Sovereigns of the several Republics does not apply to, nor can be enforced against, such men and women. PERIOD. If one doesn't inform their adversary as to the rules or laws one is abiding by, where they're “comin' from”, then the adversary will assume or presume you're submitting to their's.
The “court”, or rather a “court”, doesn't exist until it is “formed” or “convened” because there is NO “court” until a controversy is brought forward by somebody. Without the controversy, there's no need for a “court” to convene, therefore the court is “in” the paperwork or “in” the man or woman who creates the paperwork. We, the Sovereigns, carry Our “courts” or Our “laws” with Us at all times wherever We go, and that includes the times when one is summoned before a tribunal.
Stay out of, and deny, their “courts” at all times; and if one ever happens to “unknowingly” answer or enter a pleading into a jurisdiction in which he or she doesn't belong, then challenge their jurisdiction, and when they can't “prove” it and don't end the proceedings, then a “quo warranto” action is in order and should be followed through to the end.
These guys are not Our “government”; they're a Corporate/Business “enterprise” or “agency” that has usurped the lawful “organic” or “original” jurisdictional “seats of authority” that We, the Sovereigns, instituted from the git-go and they're abusing that authority to no end and need to be unseated.
Thanks again professor, your discernment continues to excel.
G & P,
Lambskin
Hey Bing,
Again, kudos are never too infrequent or late in delivery. You're definitely in your forte, so, thanks for the info and keep it up.
G&P
Lambskin
Hey Bing,
Thanks for the laugh; not quite the “pants pisser” of taxing the whores, but a good belly buster never-the-less.
You're still “da man.”
G&P
Lambskin
