Sonik Fury wrote on Feb 1 2008, 02:18 PM:
You're dead wrong!

[post=”4466″][/post]

Always, according to you. In the regard of Social Security, in a small way, yes, because it is not insurance; it is an income tax as explained in the Social Security Enabling Act (which I have posted about before, but would be more than glad to do so… Read more

Riverway wrote on Feb 1 2008, 02:38 PM:

richard9151 wrote on Feb 1 2008, 09:57 AM:
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Romans 13 1

Just to give you an idea how people are fooled… the word power there is actually the strongest word in the… Read more

Sonik Fury wrote on Jan 31 2008, 06:47 PM:
Deflation in a fiat system can be fixed in a matter of days. The Fed can simply pump money into the system and fix the problem. Inflation is difficult to restrain in a fiat system. Therefore, the former is simple to fix. The latter is troublesome.

You stated: “…when a government is no… Read more

I am impressed. Very impressed, and what impresses me the most is this;

Quote:
I purposely deleted all the material I had previously downloaded from the WTP site.

Why? Because every premise that the WTP works with is flawed, and I have to think that the reason it is flawed is because they are working with attorneys.

I refuse to… Read more

Admin wrote on Sep 14 2007, 07:33 AM:
One website focusing on nonpublication is:
Nonpublication

It also turns out that even nonpublished cases appear within Westlaw, so there is no need to compile such a list of nonpublished cases.

I do agree with you, however, that no case should go unpublished for the many reasons you cited… Read more

Sonik Fury wrote on Sep 5 2007, 07:58 AM:
Finally, here is the NAIL in the coffin. The US Constitution under Article V is subject to “revision” be it capitalization or whatever. The bottom line is – it is subject to revision through the Amendment process:

Quote:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,… Read more

Bing wrote on Sep 10 2007, 07:23 AM:
I noticed about 3 or 4 years ago, any number of errors and deficiencies with the Avalon website run by Yale Law School, so it has long ago lost its credibility with me.  And when I wrote to them, they never replied or fixed their mistakes. What does that tell you.

And that so-called Constitutional… Read more

Riverway wrote on Sep 4 2007, 12:32 PM:
Richard, we in this forum rely and depend upon settled case law to defend and substantiate our positions, not commentaries.

Do you have any Supreme Court rulings in regards to this change of wording and capitalization?

[post=”4209″][/post]

LOL! Why? Would you care to have me forward you to… Read more

Admin wrote on Sep 4 2007, 08:12 AM:
Richard 9151,

Perhaps some caselaw on changes in the capitalization of the constitution proving your premise to Mr. Sonik?? Why don't you enlighten him?? That is what he wants.? Until you produce the caselaw or citation proving your premise, which is that a change in capitalization requires an… Read more

This is a message to everyone that is interested; I have edited this post to the newest version, which I have rereleased for general distribution in many different locations with many different groups/men.

More than 500 different individuals have read this material, and while more than a few were upset, no one could point to a specific… Read more

Sonik Fury wrote on Sep 4 2007, 05:24 AM:
Okay I tell ya what – let's make this easy. I be wrong and you be right. Ok? Thuis, you be happy and continue living your illusion.

This capilization nonsense stems and his under off spring guise of the ALL CAPS THEORY which (like Christian Protestanism) is man-made. If we have no “Constitution”… Read more

Author #2 wrote on Sep 3 2007, 05:48 PM:
Richard 9151:

The 1871 act to which you refer is found below:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/16Am…tuesAtLarge.pdf

Nowhere within the act is the specific version of the constitution which was adopted mentioned.  Why do you conclude that it is the Constitution FOR the United States rather… Read more

Sonik Fury wrote on Sep 3 2007, 10:04 AM:
Author you said: “the States who are party to the Constitution cannot consent to an enlargment of federal powers within their borders”

The case you use is weak because it relates to “officers” of the state and not to the soveignty of the state. The states are sovereign within there own… Read more

Author #2 wrote on Sep 3 2007, 09:07 AM:
Reb,

Even under the concept of Cooperative Federalism
[e.g. http://sedm.org/LibertyU/CooperativeFederalism.pdf]

the States who are party to the Constitution cannot consent to an enlargment of federal powers within their borders.? To wit:

Quote:
“To the contrary, the Constitution divides… Read more

Author #2 wrote on Sep 3 2007, 02:55 PM:
Richard 9151,

Very interesting!

1.  The capitalization is different
2.  The word “defence” is replaced with “defense”.

[post=”4197″][/post]

Yes, it is, isn't it. And it goes much further than this; I stopped counting at 50 differences. Why? Because it really does not matter how many changes… Read more

Quote:

Sonik Fury wrote on Sep 3 2007, 09:00 AM:

Dude – I will put it to you simply like this…

Leave the country…

[post=”4193″][/post]

Very snappy come back, and loaded with case law. I like that. Is this your general response when you run up against something new? Or, just when the info is scary….. Which ever it is, it… Read more

Sonik Fury wrote on Jun 20 2007, 05:47 PM:
I am in agreement that the Constitution has full force and effect within non-state land. Believing otherwise is proof of a deficiency in constitutional theory.

Author – Your reliance on Carter is unpersuasive, because you seem to overlook the concept of cooperative federalism. Each state, as I… Read more

Bing wrote on Jul 18 2007, 03:36 PM:
Richard, can you please post the url links to the Tommy Cryer case materials, including the Trial Transcript, trial briefs, Motions, etc.

I, and many others in this Fourm, I am certain, would like to read the Cryer Record.

Thanks.

Bing

[post=”4124″][/post]

Be very happy to give what I have! Here… Read more

Bing wrote on Jul 9 2007, 11:18 AM:
Richard, when any government employee acts outside the bounds of their delegated authority under the USA Constitution, said Acts are void ab initio. end of story.  I don't need to cite you a court case, this is a basic Truth.

The federal Districts of which you speak, are NOT the sovereign Union of… Read more

Bing wrote on Jul 8 2007, 03:14 PM:
But Richard, as you may know, an unconstitutional act is void ab initio (i.e. from its inception). See Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442. The federal government can not lawfully usurp any Union state's sovereignty.

You should read the Broadsides if you want a behind the scenes look at… Read more

Bing wrote on Jun 26 2007, 09:18 AM:
Richard, I forgot to suggest it yesterday, but you must obtain and study the SEDM treatise titled “What Happened To Justice”.  It is a tour de force in every sense of that word.  I am still studying it and the accompanying evidence. Thousands of pages  of credible evidence that will simply blow you away.… Read more

Bing wrote on Jun 25 2007, 09:17 AM:
Richard, keep plugging away, sir.

I am genuinely glad you are present in the forum and are posting. Thank you.

Although it is true that many of us in this hallowed Forum were well aware of the gist of your lead post, that has more to do with the fact that the FG and the SEDM websites by far, contain… Read more

Admin wrote on Jun 24 2007, 12:41 PM:
Richard9151,

Yes, we entirely accept that idea.? The only thing missing that you might be able to help with is all the court-admissible evidence that supports that idea so it can be proved in court.? If you could provide that, we'll post it and share it with everyone.? Otherwise, you're just… Read more

Admin wrote on Jun 24 2007, 11:56 AM:
Richard1951,

You're preaching to the choir.  The article you posted is already found on Family Guardian.  It has been here for at least four years.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…Corporation.htm

[post=”4003″][/post]

Good. Does that mean that you accept that there are two… Read more

Bing wrote on Jun 20 2007, 03:11 PM:
The Constitution does apply to Washington, D.C. and the US territories and federal enclaves, but only to the extent that the U.S. Congress has deemed it so.  No more, and no less.

Bing

[post=”3984″][/post]

Bing, what you are saying is exactly what I am saying, in that NONE of the limitations… Read more

Author #2 wrote on Jun 18 2007, 10:37 AM:

Dear Richard9151:

I searched all the U.S. supreme court rulings from the beginning and cannot find the reference that says “exclusive” means ''without the restraint of the Constitution''. Please enlighten us.

Also, I am puzzled by your comment:

Quote:
He knew, and everyone else at that time did… Read more

Bing wrote on Jun 18 2007, 05:16 AM:
Richard, glad you are here.  🙂

As I understand it, the USA Constitution DOES apply to the District of Columbia and the US Territories and possessions, BUT only to the extent that the US Congress extends certain elements of said Constitution.

Give me a day or two and I will give you the supporting… Read more

Author #5 wrote on Jun 16 2007, 05:41 AM:
Richard9151,

The Constitution always was applicable in the District of Columbia.  It applied to the district before the district was ceded to the United States by Maryland and Virginia in 1790, which was AFTER the Constitution was ratified.  The Supreme Court said in Downes that there are steps which… Read more

To begin to take this a step forward, if we begin with Social Security being THE contract for the Income Tax, then the vast majority of the so-called tax protest movement is not only built around false information, but it is very dangerous information to use!

That being said, I have tried to talk to a number of people in the 'movement,'… Read more

Bing wrote on Jun 15 2007, 09:05 AM:
Yep. The Social Security tax is an income tax . . . . . on “wages” paid by an “employer” to its “employee”.

There are three words of art in the preceding sentence, “wages”, “employee”, and “employer.”

Proceed at your own risk.

Bing

[post=”3963″][/post]

SIGN at your own risk. I have never been… Read more

Admin wrote on Jun 14 2007, 01:15 PM:
Richard,

Nice work.  You're absolutely correct.  Exactly the same conclusions are reached in the Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee Document posted on this website:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Em…stIndenture.pdf

See section 3 in the above… Read more