oneofthepeople
Forum Replies Created
-
Chapter 1 observations will be posted at another time being that most of them are written on paper and must be typed. So for now, Chapters 2 and 3 are posted here. More corrections from other chapters of the most recent version need to be reviewed and page numbers and lines verified because some of them were recorded from two different versions of the book.
Also, the approach taken is of the philosophy that the more correct the grammar and spelling, the greater the credibility. The belief is that all who wish for a greater of awareness of principles of liberty and adherence thereto will support strict proofreading, so as to convey greater credibility to those who are seeing or learning this material for the first time. Thus, many of the suggestions in the list are based upon strict principles of grammar or spelling through proofreading. If any of the suggestions made go beyond the author’s or authors’ desire for criticism or simply do not follow a principle of construction of the book, please make such indication so that future suggestions may be edited accordingly. An example of such principle of construction would be that found in the correction suggested on page 3-86, line 22. There are also a couple general suggestions in the mix.
There seems to be some difficulty with pasting from Word into the forum, and adjustments needed to be made. Hopefully, all of the formatting below will appear correctly.
Here is the list for these two chapters:
Chapter 2
Page 2-22 line 9 should read “as Karl Marx,” not “a Karl Marx.”
Page 2-23 line 26 remove “He as” in “He as he shook.”
Page 2-29 line 18 where it reads “conspiracy to against rights” remove “to?”
Page 2-29 line 26 where it reads “the LRC has is abusing the law”
Page 2-40 line 41 strike the word “will” in “position will be will presumed”
Page 2-47 line 21-22 reads “This leads amounts to”
Page 2-48 line 43 remove the word “the” in “pay the what the government”
Page 2-50 line 30 reads “he is asked resign” missing the word “to”
Page 2-52 line 5-6 is missing the word “is” in the phrase “because it an equal exchange”
Page 2-69 line 16 “diverse” is misspelled
Page 2-74 line 23 the word should be “chosen” in “be the one chose”
Page 2-81 line 38 should have a period after “litigants” and capitalize the new sentence
Page 2-84 line 27 should read “1. Do not”
Page 2-85 line 35 1884 is earlier not later as referred to 1886 in line 17 (I am missing how the Supreme Court could repeat a doctrine from 1886 in 1884. That is how I am interpreting the reading on this page.)
Page 2-88 line 43 remove the hyphen in “covers-up”
Page 2-89 line 6 Why does this line state that an amendment creates a right? Why does this not use a word such as “secures,” “protects,” or something similar?
Page 2-89 line 30 a comma is needed after “substantive”
Page 2-91 line 34 correct “of by a judge”
Page 2-91 line 37 should read “hand in hand”
Page 2-95 line 9 should read “worth paying if it buys”
Page 2-96 line 23 should read “rule of law is being” not “been”
Page 2-96 line 36 “whatsoever” is one word
Page 2-96 line 31 should read “the law is actually being applied” or “the law has actually been applied.” Not sure which you desired here.
Page 2-97 line 30 should have a comma after “IRS advice,” to signify end of that phrase
Page 2-101 line 2 should read “personal nest egg”
Page 2-102 line 4 there should be a space between the comma and “essentially”
Chapter 3
Page 3-17 Table 3-1, row 9 under column “Authorities” remove the word “are” in “are do not have the force”
Page 3-17 Row 11 under column “Authorities” remove the word “are” in “are do not have the force”
Page 3-24 line 35 “burglar” is misspelled
Page 3-24 line 42 remove period after “the constitutional test.”
Page 3-24 line 42 “them and only then” should be “then and only then”
Page 3-40 line 20 “others income” should have an apostrophe before the “s” if singular or after if plural
Page 3-43 line 34 should this not read “should not interfere” instead of “should interfere?”
Page 3-66 line 20 should read “you and me” in parentheses
Page 3-69 in box 10 under the non-legalese question remove the period after the “federal zone” parenthesis and lowercase S for source income
Page 3-77 line 58 the word “an” should be “and” that reads “between what is an what”
Page 3-78 line 19 the words collect and lawfully should be transposed
Page 3-78 lines 48 and 49 regarding “tips are gifts” is a bit of a run-on sentence at the end when it mentions “with the employer are not wages.” It would seem to read better to me if this was positioned earlier to read something such as “tips are gifts, and not ‘wages,’ earned outside…”
Page 3-83 lines 22 and 23 the phrase “does NOT a private natural person” suggested to read “does NOT mean a private natural person” or “is not a private natural person”
Page 3-84 line 24 the word “that” appears twice as “that that” and should only appear once
Page 3-84 lines 46 and 49 Reference to 26 USC 1401 should be 8 USC 1401, yes? 26 USC 1401 references rate of tax.
Page 3-84 lines 44 through 49 I was thinking at one point, “What do these double asterisks mean?” I was looking for a footnote for them. I think using page 5-280 line 1 Notes is probably the best source in the book. Maybe it would be good to also include this version in the Preface rather than or in addition to the one already there to reference the asterisks.
Page 3-85 line 12 referenced 26 USC and should be 5 USC
Page 3-86 line 22 the word “nationals” should be capitalized. Beginning of sentence.
Page 3-87 in the first table remove the parentheses. The “Comment” box where it reads “to owe (something” and that he must “pay (something)” is confusing.
Page 3-88 that table at line 5, the “Definition” cell 3 reads “member of employee” and should be “member or employee” for the Internal Revenue Code row defining person in the latter half of the box. Sec. 7343
Page 3-88 line 16 the word “point” should be past tense “pointed”
Page 3-93 line 34 reads “people like you and I” in parentheses. It should read “like you and me.” The best way is to test is using the singular. Thus, you would say people like me.
Page 3-102 line 29 should read “IRS Form W-4” instead of “IRS. For W-4.”
Page 3-104 line 23 should read “it is the only section” and not “it is only section”
Page 3-104 line 39 should read “as defined by the Supreme Court” not “as defined the Supreme Court”
Page 3-118 line 17 periods should be contained inside the quotation marks at the end of sentences. Suggested “proposed regulations”. changed to “proposed regulations.” Same goes for commas within words wrapped in quotations. See page 3-122 line 5. There are more throughout the document. The choice was merely made at this time point out this change after seeing it previously. A search for (“,) in the document will obviously indicate all occurrences.
Page 3-122 line 5 place commas inside quotation marks surrounding words or phrases such as “26 C.F.R. Part 1,” There are more throughout the document. The choice was merely made at this time point out this change after seeing it previously. A search for (“,) in the document will obviously indicate all occurrences.
Page 3-118 lines 18 and 19 reads “of a particular proposed regulations.” Suggested removal of the word “a”
Page 3-118 line 35 the word “legislative” should be capitalized because it is the beginning of a sentence.
Page 3-149 line 25 where it reads “as well or other property” the word “or” suggested to be corrected to either “for” or “as.”
Page 3-149 line 34 Change the word “be” to “by”
Page 3-150 line 8 change the words “or the Sovereignty Forms” to “of the Sovereignty Forms”
-
Hello Admin,
First, thank you for the abundance of information provided and thorough responses.
I wish to know to what extent you wish to have typos reported. I have kept record of these in the past while reading The Great IRS Hoax (TGIH), but have not posted them yet. Today I was bouncing around in TGIH looking up a few specific things and believe I found something worth your attention.
In version 4.54 on page 3-83 line 22, I believe “does NOT” should read “is NOT.” However, I cannot be sure because it appears possibly to be a citation, but I see no reference to its origin.
As a second item, is there a citation for this paragraph?
-
Thank you for that.
I’m curious…
Do you have an organizational system or method wherein you have Supreme Court cases recorded for quick reference for all of these topics? I wish to start recording and organizing them for my own reference.
-
According to the TWE the United States must be at war for “enemy” to apply. No declaration of war means they are our “FRIENDS.” How nice…
@ All
Here is a serious question in trying to truly learn. The TWE states, “The words ‘United States,’ as used herein, shall be deemed to mean all land and water, continental or insular, in any way within the jurisdiction of the United States or occupied by the military or naval forces thereof.”
Does this appear to any of you to be any different than the definitions contained in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (10)?
-
So, please address these concerns of confusion.
This case is about violation of 18 U.S.C. 229, which states at ( b ), “it shall be unlawful for any person…”
Much educational material written focuses on the definition and use of terms such as “individual” and “person.”
Later in this case on page 11 of the document and page 14 of the PDF the court refers to Chadha as “a person whose liberty was at risk” and as an “individual, indeed one who was not a citizen of the United States,” who, “sought to protect…his own right to avoid deportation.”
Please help with understanding the use of these words in this ruling.
1. Does the United States or INS deport entities?
2. Is Chadha considered to be a “mask” or artificial entity (person) in this ruling?
3. If not, why does the court depart from the use of these words as terms when they are consistently treated as terms in the statutes? Are they talking out of both sides of their mouths?
4. The ruling states Chadha is “not a citizen of the United States,” but he is referred to as an “individual.” So, how is he an “individual” or do the courts conveniently abandon terms such as found in 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2) when the litigated argument is not about the actual term?
5. If #4 is not about the actual term, does the statute in question also use “person” to mean all persons such as men and women?
Observation: Many references can also be found where authors point out specific uses of words in rulings to make arguments or establish positions supporting that the courts are very careful in their choice of said words and how such choices support that words such as “individual” and “person” are actually being used as terms as found in statutes. The use of these words seem to contradict this idea in this ruling.
Please provide any feedback regarding this observation.
-
So apparently when using parentheses with the letter “b” the emoticon seen is inserted. Further the copyright symbol is inserted when using letter “c” in the same. Spaces added to correct.
Should be…
-
Another good resource that allows people to follow along with audio regarding the definition of the term “firearm” along with some history can be heard broken down by (both now deceased) Michael James Anthony on the The American Reconstruction Project radio show by Michael Golden aka “Jack Bauer” on TalkShoe at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=74235&cmd=tc
Start listening at 53:00 minutes.
Further, 18 USC 921 is also limited in its term of “firearm” under the Notes as follows:Pub. L. 90–351, title IV, § 904,June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 234, as amended by Pub. L. 99–514, § 2,Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that: “Nothing in this title or amendment made thereby [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as notes under this section] shall be construed as modifying or affecting any provision of—
“(a) the National Firearms Act (chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) [section 5801 et seq. of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code]; or
“(B ) section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (22 U.S.C. 1934), as amended, relating to munitions control; or
“(c ) section 1715 of title 18, United States Code, relating to nonmailable firearms.”
The definition of the term “handgun” being derived from “firearm” is also discussed.
There are some other preceding topics in this recording such as traffic, obstructing an officer, and special prosecutors,
So here is an extension of this topic. Yes, one can purchase guns privately from another man. Does anyone know of any resources that allow for purchase of any gun from the manufacturer without the use of a FFL dealer? -
@Admin
The statements below are not made to confirm nor deny the veracity of the speaker in the video above. (David Williams?) They are mere observations. From watching the video posted three of the points I gleaned were as follows:
1. If one is not a direct descendant of the founding fathers, one is not of the Posterity for whom the Constitution was written, and thus the protections therein do not apply unless government wishes to afford or uphold such protection.
2. If there is a connection by any man to one of the privileged franchises, one is engaged in a public office, thus “securing” the connection to a “trade or business” such as found when using identifying numbers to establish any financial account.
3. The government is doing it right. They are following international law for the benefit of the Posterity, and the only remedy for all who are not direct descendants is to exercise self-exile or self-determination to essentially make a declaration of independence in accord with international law to assert one’s God-given rights.
Did you receive the same messages?
What are your thoughts about the video?
@ Everyone
Has anyone studied the materials at the speaker’s website? If so, what is your take on that material?
-
Are you referring to 53 Stat. p. 510 Chapter 2 listed as H.R. 2762, Public, No. 1 dated February 10, 1939, and titled, “Internal Revenue Code. AN ACT To consolidate and codify the internal revenue laws of the United States” as proof the IRC was repealed or something else? Please help me understand. I do not see mention of a repeal.
-
Your explanation makes sense. Thank you for it.
-
1. First of all, thank you for answering. This does provide some clarification.
2. I merely posted here because I had remembered creating the user account in the past, but don’t think I had posted before.
3. Do you have suggestions for sources regarding education of the private trust topic? I know of The Art of Passing the Buck.
4. The more I read, the more it seems that the combination of ignorance by most and the complete disregard for the law by the servants of this country will make the pursuit of severing all ties to these franchises either next to impossible and/or a subscription to a life full of constant, ongoing harassment and duress. I have yet to know of anyone living in one of the several 50 States that has been able to successfully sever all franchise relationships, keep their health and make a living. Even those that I know that have tried severing the “driver” franchise have been harassed so much that each one has re-subscribed. Every fiber in me indicates that the franchises are not for the private man. Overcoming the fear driven by all of the “unsuccessful” stories of so many “fallen” students of the law is overwhelming, especially when there are children in the home. Is there anyone posting on this forum that truthfully has been able to sever all franchise ties?
As responses to the topics to which the above reply was made, I wish to pose a $64,000 question. I am asking this from the standpoint of a private human being (at least that is my intention and goal and not necessarily as a business) selling wares for which people demand a preponderance of purchases to occur using credit or debit cards.
In the spirit of pursuing the matter as a private human being, I called a company about creating an account to accept credit card payments. After much runaround, I was able to get one guy on the phone who threw out something akin to, “I know the whole sovereign citizen argument,” which I promptly corrected. He said that he would not complete an application by phone for an account without providing an EIN and SSN for the individual contact, and that if I wanted I could submit an online application which requires the same. However, he stated there is no way underwriting would ever accept the application because they (the reps) have been instructed as to what underwriting wants. He further stated that he has tried to create accounts for non-resident aliens before and they are refused by underwriting. He stated that the “Know Your Customer” provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act was his basis for refusal. I have read 31 C.F.R. 306.10 regarding nonresident aliens, which applies to securities and don’t see other mention of the nonresident alien in the Part of 31 C.F.R. regarding Know Your Customer. I have read about pursuing actual individual actors rather than companies to compel adherence to the law. These companies don’t care about having any burden of proof. Their attitude is that they don’t have to do anything other than follow what they believe they are told to do by the IRS.
In such a situation where there is no clear individual to pursue, what feedback might any of you give to actually compel creation of such an account for the private human being if it is possible. I wish to pursue this issue to see if I can find success. If “merchant account” providers refuse to create an account unless one compels an individual within the company to create such an account, what suggestions might one make as the route to make such compellation? Must this be pursued in State court? If the processing companies claim not to have any one individual to identify who is responsible for the refusals of these accounts, what suggestion might anyone here make?
To the Admin, I also ask for clarification about the statement that my questions, “relate exclusively to SEDM content and need to be posted on the sedm site.” My view is that they are in line with the topic of taxation as described in the Great IRS Hoax and the abundance of cross-referencing between that document, Famguardian and SEDM documents along with posts in the forum and the Famguardian mission statement,
“Nonprofit Christian religious ministry dedicated to protecting people and families from extortion, persecution, exploitation, socialism, divorce, crime, and sin. Advocate personal liberty, personal responsibility, constitutional and SMALL and accountable government, sovereignty, and religious faith.”
My goal is to address this subject matter from the vantage of a private human being trying to make a living selling wares via the Internet, and align with all applicable facets of this site’s mission statement. Maybe I am missing something in my perception of things, which is why I am here questioning things. Please understand I am merely trying to explore the topic believing it will help others too. I further believe trying to understand how to promote liberty beyond more than working for someone or some company that believes itself to be a US employer is a step in the right direction.
Thank you again for your time.