[richard9151]

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 does not impress me very much.

Please note these locations;

Quote:

Original Constitution for the United States of America

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-…transcript.html

You will note that the above site is a national archive, please.

Quote:

Go here for a copy of the Constitution OF the United States

Constitution of the United States

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm

The above is from the Yale Law School, and it is what is taught in the public fool schools controlled by the BAR and the United States government.

Now, below is the preamble from both, starting with the original Constitution. See if you can identify anything different between the two;

Original Constitution;

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

From the Constitution OF the United States;

Quote:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Remember, please, that the United States government CAN NOT change a single dot, comma or capitalization of a single word in the ORIGINAL Constitution without permission from the States in union.

Now, Article 1, Section 2 from the original Constitution;

Quote:

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Article 1, Section 2 from the Constitution OF the United States;

Quote:

Section 2 – House of Representatives, how and by whom chosen Qualifications of a Representative. Representatives and direct taxes, how apportioned. Enumeration. Vacancies to be filled. Power of choosing officers, and of impeachment.

1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the elector in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.

Of course, I understand that we have been told everything that is neccessary to live as slaves within the democracy of Washington, DC, so, Sonik Whatever, please do not study the info, just use snappy comebacks like you did.

[richard9151]

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 trust you know, is its own separate sovereignty. Sovereignties like a state, have a right to engage in cooperative understandings with other sovereignties. This theory is completely harmonious to the 9th Amendment.

Case law can be provided if you are not persuaded with the statements I have made above.

[post=”3988″][/post]

And…. that would be case law from where? Since I started with this, I have gone forward with additional postings, including; There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion….

Here is the meat of that post;

Quote:

Now, we need to look at the Constitution; Article 3, Section 1:

?The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, ??

Since Congress was ordered to establish and clearly did establish the supreme court of the United States, as an inferior court, BECAUSE THE CONGRESS IS NOT COMMANDED TO ESTABLISH ANY OTHER COURT, the Supreme Court is an inferior court to the one supreme Court established by the Constitution.  That court, the one supreme Court, has never sat, has never decided a case, and there exists no case law from that court. 

The part of the Constitution, Article 3, Section 1, came directly from an original copy of the Constitution as archived by the United States government. That Constitution is; The Constitution for the United States of America.

The following quote is from the Constitution adopted by the United States government in 1871, and known as; Constitution of the United States;

Quote:

Section 1- Judicial powers. Tenure. Compensation.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

If you look at the two sections rather briefly, you may identify some few small changes, even in the brief part from the original Constitution that I used in my post. Now, I have posted links for both Constitutons, but if you need them, please ask. I also should not need to mention, but I will, that the United States government is not permitted to change one coma in the original Constitution. Perhaps, if you will consider this, then you will understand what actually happened in 1871 a little better.

I will also point out here, as I did in my post in Family Forum, that because the one supreme Court has never sat, has never heard a case and has no case law in existence, then the Constitution in its original form WAS NEVER implemented.

Now, here is my conclusion; the Constitution DOES NOT APPLY TO WASHINGTON, DC, and never has. In addition, it has never applied outside of the original states, and the real purpose of the Civil War was to bury the original Constitution and put something entirely different in its place.

So, my question to you is, as a legal researcher, when you quote something, esp. in court papers, just whose Constitution are YOU using?

[richard9151]

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 is his web page;

http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/index.htm

And here is the address for the memormandum he used;

http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/THEMEMORANDUM.pdf

It is about 100 pages long, so there is a LOT of info in it. Pretty interesting read. Enjoy. 😉

[richard9151]

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 American states united by and under the Constitution. You are confused on this.

I agree that the US Supreme Court is actually an administrative Court and IS not the same supreme Court referred to in the Constitution.

Even still, since it is unlikely that the corrupt and lying US Government will ever openly admit this fact, those of us in the THM can rely on said Court's opinions to try and tie down and restrict the degrees of freedom of all lower courts.  Just observe how one of our own Members successfully fought off the corrupt DOJ attorneys, and an even more corrupt federal Judge named Lorenz, who, in the end, finally and correctly backed off at the real risk of suffering the consequences of a Bivens action.

When federal judges such as Lorenz realize that they face the threat of being held personally accountable via a Bivens action, it appears that they tend to be more concerned with meting out justice, instead of simply kow-towing to the liars that comprise the corrupt Assistant U.S. Attorneys employed by the corrupt US DOJ.

You seem intent of wholly disregarding the Constitution, and to the extent that you do that and supposedly prove your point, you lose the only real protection that you have. Thus, my advice is to tread carefully and be very careful what you wish for.

Richard, not every idea or theory that you may have, must necessarily be posted in this open Forum, which is closely read by any number of IRS spies and corrupt US Attorneys. Keep that in mind.

Be very careful if anyone in the Forum, save myself, ADMIN, Author 2, and perhaps a few others, sends you a PM and agrees with you and wants you to email them.

[post=”4097″][/post]

Understood. And however that may be, I have been blessed to understand some things, and the best protection is when what I understand is shared with many. And the more people that understand the nature of the so-called courts, the more effective everyone is going to be. Nothing irritates more than when you awaken from a deep sleep to find you have been living in an illusion. Besides, there may be some that are on the dark side and who really do not have a clue. Maybe some of them can be enlightened as well.

And you misunderstand where I am heading. I said it before; education, of many. I understand that the Constitution, in whatever form it exists, is here, and has been for many years. In that, it is beyond ignoring, as it is a fact of life. BUT, that being said, the only answer is education of many, and today, in America, there exists an oportunity to address this issue, because there are more people today who are mad than ever before. In fact, a recent poll showed that a majority of people, for the first time in our history, said that it is now the people vs. the government, and that there do not appear to be any solutions.

But I do not believe that you can do that, wake up ?arge numbers of people, unless you go right down to the very bedrock of what happened, when it happened, and why it happened. AND, this is particularly true in the tax movement. People feel disenchanted now, but they have no real idea as to just how much they have been lied to!

I understand the difference between the union states and the garbage that Washington created. You have read enough of what I wrote to realize that.

And I also understand the real problem; in excess of 95% of all elected office holders are sworn attorneys, i.e., officiers of their courts. But until you start educating enough people about the real facts, just as I showed about the so-called Supreme Court, nothing is going to be done about that. People just continue to vote for attorneys, as if it does not matter!

There must be found a way to bring people to the education now; the only time they show up here, or start searching for answers, is when they have a serious problem, and it is usually too late by then. I want to bring something to the table that will do that, esp. NOW.

By the way, if you read the Black's Law Dictionary, look up tribunal. It is interesting. I did not get that until I read the early Slaughter House (1869) paper a couple of times. Pay close attention to the reference to Roman Law. That is actually what the Supreme Court is; a tribunal.

[richard9151]

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 the Constitutional Convention.

The District States to which you refer can only be applicable within the federal enclaves located within the Union states.  I think you are confusing Union states with federal States.

The USA Constitution forbids the combination of two or more Union states without the prior, express approval from the respective state legislatures and Congress.

Bing

[post=”4094″][/post]

Says who? Their court system? And does that change what 'they' did at the time of the inception of the Constitution? Does that change the nature of the so-called Supreme Court? Does that change the natures of the courts that you are going into, and which are subject to the so-called Supreme Court? Does that change the fact — NOTE THIS: FACT — that since the Constitution WAS NEVER fully implemented, it has never been in full force and effect? The one supreme Court has never sat. Period. Or, show me case law from it. Just because, in their court system, they give lip service sufficient to keep everyone off balance and unsure of what is actually going on, does not mean anything, except that we are dealing with very devious men.

And do not forget, you have yet to read Part II; where we will address the issue of the Congress, and the so-called Amendments. And, does any of this change the simple fact that the Civil War has never been declared ended?

Bing, first, go back to this piece, and only this piece. Show me, in this piece, any error. And what I said about George Washington, and his federal district states, was that he had no Constitutional privilege to do what he did; BUT HE DID IT ANYWAY. AND, those federal district states exist today, just as they did when he created them, only, there are a lot more of them today than there were then!

My question remains; show me any error. IN THIS PAPER. Richard

[richard9151]

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. It was a pardigm shift for me. Read it and you will learn that the US Supreme Court is NOT the court of justice which many believe that it is. It is really an administrative tribunal.

My sense has long been the same as yours, the corrupt U.S. Congress does nothing irrelevent.

In this regard, the U.S. Congress moves and acts for one reason and one reason only:

To expand their power and control while seeking to undermine and usurp the sovereignty of state nationals and American Citizens, while simultaneously obfuscating the nature of Congress' Constitutional limits, in a concerted effort to bewilder and confuse general public, thus making it easier to control the masses.  For example, simply read the REAL ID Act and you will see that it actually only applies to federal states, yet, most of the Union states believe or pretend, that it applies to them. It is cooperative federalism writ large.

Also, Richard, if you have not done so already, you must read and study G. Edward Griffin's tome, The Creature From Jeckyll Island.  he documents the corruption surrounding the creation of the Federal Reserve and scheming done by international bankers to control the world's governments.

I have long believed that the bigger problem confronting the THM is how to take on and defeat the Federal Reserve via education of the masses.

We will never truly prevail against the IRS, until and unless we can get the U.S. Congress to dissolve the Federal Reserve Board. Former Congressman James Traficant wanted to do just that, and he got 8 or 10 years on trumped up charges. This is what happens when one challenges the status quo. 

It is a generational conflict that will require infiltrating both the US Congress thru open and fair elections, thus getting our candidates elected fair and square.

The corrupt Fed can only lawfully be attacked from within, not from without. This requires Congressman like Ron Paul, who are honest men of character.

Bing

[post=”4015″][/post]

brief overview of how the separation of powers has been systematically destroyed :

Well aware of this. And the true separation of powers was between the people and the states, and this was destroyed when the election of Senators was changed to popular vote. This also proves, at least as far as I am concerned, that all Amendments since the TONA amendment have been adopted, and none of them have been lawfully ratified.

Article. V.

Quote:

and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

“What Happened To Justice”. I will do so, but I suspect that I have a pretty good inkling of what is in it.

'' US Supreme Court is NOT the court of justice which many believe that it is. It is really an administrative tribunal.'' — Well aware of this, as the true Article III court has never sat. I believe that this was revealed in the so-called Slaughter House cases. I also alluded to this through Supreme Court Rule 45.1 in either my second or third post.

Quote:

Supreme Court Rule 45.1, which says that all process of that court is in the name of the President of the United States.  The Supreme Court (and all courts subject to the rules laid down by the Supreme Court; this includes all so-called state courts) can only be an executive branch (martial law) court.

(of me)

All of these courts have military flags flying in them with the eagle on top. There is not a single court in America today with a banner on the wall. If you wish, I can post the laws about the military flags. I am sure you know them as well as I do.

''Also, Richard, if you have not done so already, you must read and study G. Edward Griffin's tome, The Creature From Jeckyll Island. '' — Been there, done that; not that impressed as he did not spend the effort needed to educate about what a disappearing money does to an economy. Frankly, I have writtne better about the effect of the money system, and Euctace Mullins taught me more with his tome on the Federal Reserve. And, the corruption is self-evident, esp. if you are aware of what Teddy Roosevelt did to get Wilson elected, and Taft thrown out, knowing of Taft's absolute opposition to the Federal Reserve Act.

'' via education of the masses.'' Everything any of you are speaking of comes back to this. I am beginning to get the sense that you have the same opinion of trying anything in their courts that I do, and that it is basically, a waste of time, EXCEPT, where it is neccessary to try and protect someone.

Everything you are saying mirrors what I say, and that is that we do not know enough about what has gone on behind closed doors and what aggreements have been made that change everything without our knowledge.

Quote:

Former Congressman James Traficant

How many others just like him have been murdered or thrown out? Or, put into jail? We do not even know how many there have been. That pretty well leaves elections out, and I think that all here understand what will happen to Ron Paul if he were, by some miricle, able to win a major election.

That really narrows the choices down, and of them all, only eduction of the masses is palatable. And given that, I stand by the two points that I made above, and, if either of them is correct, as my research has lead me to believe, then anything that is done that is short of mass education and taking the cities, towns and states back one by one, will not work.

That being said, do you have an aducation program aimed at masses of people, and that is capable of fulling that role, including assignments and reading, where people can progress in an orderly fashion? This would need to include testing, grading, and advancement through a structured and set schedule. And if you do not have that, why do you not? This is something that could be done, for small fees that would support itself, and, could draw a large number of people.

Curious minds want to know.

[richard9151]

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 the best and brightest minds in the THM. 

We are very serious legal and Constitutional scholars, researchers, and authors who do not seek nor want public acclaim or adulation for our efforts.  This  selfless approach runs contrary to certain other public personas in the THM, who, although far less expert in these matters than we are, routinely seek publicity for whatever reason.

Richard, sir, many learned folks in the Forum are way ahead of the curve so far as the rest of the THM is concerned, so don't get discouraged just because you post something which we are already well aware of.

As you know, the Statutes at Large actually contains the fact that in 1871, Washington, D.C. was incorporated. In federal codes, the term “United States” most often means “Washington, D.C.”/ District od Columbia”, as I know you are already aware of this. See also, the UCC 1-307.

Sir, simply keep on posting and don't worry about whether what you post may already be something that many of us are aware of. We get new folks registering  here every day, and they can truly benefit from reading your posts and the ensuing discussion and html links that may result.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

Bing

[post=”4010″][/post]

Bing, thank you for your kind words. And I will admit that posting here is somewhat different from other locations. It has been….. well, difficult to catch up here, because everywhere else that I post or attempt to communicate all I can get is into an argument! Here, you guys point out any errors and push me further along! UNREAL!

Elsewhere, all I get told is that what I am saying is impossible, cause there are lawyers who say it ain't right, and man! They got radio shows! Sometimes I want to reach through the puter and grab someone by the throat and just shake them!

Frankly, this is the first time that I have talked with men who are at least as far along as I am. And probably further along in many ways, but then, I have no interest in lawsuits. I am interested in the reasons WHY, other, that is to say, than general corruption.

And you are the first man I have ever had agree with me that the Constitution applies to Washington, DC, only so far as the Congress decides that it does. And you had to be grinning when you wrote that answer to me!

But please, a question if I may. Are you referring just to what happened in the Civil War, and/or, 1871? Or do you go back to the original Constitution, as I showed with the Maryland grant of Exclusive Jurisdiction? Because there was knowledge of what was going on in the Federal court system. For instance;

United States v. More

3 Cranch 159 1805

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/do…s/a3_2_2s8.html

Quote:

Mason.–When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution. If they are, they have violated it, by not giving us a republican form of government. The same observation will also apply to Louisiana.

NOTE; When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution….

So to me, the corruption is from the beginning, and this is what needs to be addressed first, in all cases. Unless a man accepts that everything we have been told about the United States is a lie, nothing can be penatrated or repaired. That is where I start. From the beginning.

The comment was made to me in my first post (?by author?) that whatever happened in 1871 (16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34 (1871)) was basically irrelavant, because the Constitution adhered to the District of Columbia from the beginning. I have found nothing in my research that leads me to think that what is done in Washington, DC, or by Congress, is ever irrelavant. There is a reason for everything; we simply need to identify that reason. In that event, permit me to suggest two things:

1. Those that claim that Congress went sine die in 1861 are correct, and that the United States died at that time; they do not claim that, I say it. If that is the case, then legally, the Constitution needed to be reapplied to give life back to the District of Columbia. And yes, I have read all of the material about the incorporation of the District of Columbia, and about the municipal law. BUT, I have also seen a letter by Chief Justice John Marshall about the United States being a corporation. That letter was from about 1808, if memory serves. Frankly, I do not think that we, as Americans, know enough about what went on behind the scenes during and after the Civil War. (I have seen archived letters from the government of the South that verifies that most/a lot of the Union soldiers were not Americans, but were recruited in, primarily, Germany and Ireland, to fight the Civil War for the North.)

2. That the Constitution that was applied in 1871 (16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34 (1871)) is not, word for word, the same Constitution. Not to mention, that I have yet to find anything from that time that applied the Bill of Rights to the District.

Here is a copy of the Constitution for the United States;

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

This is a government archive with a copy of the original Constitution.

Here is a copy of the Constitution of the Untited States;

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm

This is from the Yale Law School. And the two Constitutions are not the same.

I have yet to find a Constitution tied directly to 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34 (1871).

I also find it interesting to remember how several men in the so-called patriot community complained (to me) about how bad the Constitution printed in the Sixth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary was, and how it needed to be stated in court papers that that edition of Blacks was not suitable for using in their suit.

I find that particularly amusing now because after a short examination of the Constitution printed in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it seems to be an exact copy of the original Constitution, as archived at the government site. That being said, just what Constitution are people using when they write lawsuits? Or, when they research? 😮

[richard9151]

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 sharing opinions.? This forum is a mock court and not a place for opinions, but rather facts and evidence to prove what you say is true.? This provides practice to our members in litigating and helps them in litigating to defend their rights.

We don't accept presumptions, opinions, or patriot mythology here.? The only thing readers can rely upon are the things documented below:

Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007

http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf

[post=”4005″][/post]

?????????? To do what you are saying, you have to be able to prove that their courts are illegal. And any judge who accpets that premise is going to have a very short life span, and an even shorter term on the bench.

The judge in the McVeigh trial (forget his name), it was reported to me, made a statement in open court in a different trial that THAT IS WHY WE FOUGHT THE CIVIL WAR! And if you check the date in this document, 1871, against the last reported and verified publication of the TONA (Titles of Nobility Amendment), 1867 in Colorado and 1876 in the Territory of Wyoming, one would have to accept that the judge knew of what he was speaking. Given that, then what are you proposing as a means of penetrating the BAR monopoly? The only thing that I see as capable of doing that is public education….. which is where I am headed eventually.

As to the other, it is not that hard to break down the acceptance of the amendments as adopted, or ratified, simply by the definitions in Black's, and, of course, by there never being a requirement for notice of ratification of an amendment by the federal government prior to what is called the 13th Amendment today. BUT, that does not mean that the argument will be accepted. In THEIR courts. On the other hand, I have seen back room courtrooms with a banner on the wall, no bars on the floor, or, around any jury box, so, has anyone in this site been able to set such a court? I was in one, but I was much younger and I did not actually realize what was going on at the time.

Given what you request, and given all of the facts that have been proven beyond any shred of doubt about the income tax amendment and the TONA, and that none of this proven data has ever, to my knowledge, been accepted in THEIR courts, what, exactly, is the point of returning to their courts without a completely different approach?

[richard9151]

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 Constitutions? Because that is where I am heading with this, and if that is already accepted here, perhaps it is not needed.

[richard9151]

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 within the Constitution apply to the Congress; therefore, the Constitution does not apply to the District of Columbia.

The only way that the Constitution is important to us, the plain joes of the nation, is in the limitations that it places on Congress/the United States government.

This is just a play on words; The Constitution applies to Washington, DC, but because of the Constitution itself through Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, the Constitution does not apply to Washington, DC!

I went over this in the first post, The Constitution Does Not Apply to Washington, DC, including how Congress applied the Constitution to the District in, as I recall, 1871, BUT, they included weasel words in the application which said that if any part of the Constitution did not apply before, then, they did not apply now either.

Here is the difference; rights, or, Civil Rights. I hope we all understand that rights exist, and Civil Rights are granted by Congress. And, that which Congress grants, Congress can take away.

In what I am saying, Bing, given your reply, does this mean that we are in complete agreement?

[richard9151]

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 as well, that the Constitution did not apply to the District of Columbia.

This comment is inconsistent with what the Supreme Court said in Downes, whereby they admitted that the constitution attached irrevocably to D.C. Why would Washington believe otherwise if the land ceded by Maryland was once covered by the constitution?

[post=”3978″][/post]

We need to step back for a moment and look at this differently. Here is the statement from Downes;

Quote:

There could be no doubt as to the correctness of this conclusion, so far, at least, as it applied to the District of Columbia. This District had been a part of the states of Maryland and [182 U.S. 244, 261] Virginia. It had been subject to the Constitution, and was a part of the United States[***]. The Constitution had attached to it irrevocably. There are steps which can never be taken backward. The tie that bound the states of Maryland and Virginia to the Constitution could not be dissolved, without at least the consent of the Federal and state governments to a formal separation.

And this statement is correct in that it can not be undone. However, it is a LITTERAL statement. You can not apply it in any other manner; in other words, it applies with all of it's limitations. That means that the Exclusive Jurisdiction clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, applies just as the rest of the Constitution does, but it does not mean that it applies to the District of Columbia in the same manner that it is applied to the states, and in this, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 is consistent with the land grant from Maryland in that it grants EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, which is the only land grant which is relavant.

This is the problem with us when we read something that is written by an attorney; they speak and write legally, which means that what they say is akin to double speak, and unless you step back and look at what is being said, and WHY it is being said, something will probably get by you.

There is something else that is important in the quote above, and that is what was not said. That quote from Downes does not say; the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. All it refers to is the Constitution, yet, the Bill of Rights is a separate, legal document with it's own Preamble, so, when they said the Constitution, that is exactly what they meant, and nothing more, including Amendments. That is important to understand when I start my next post.

Also, in reference to the meaning of exclusive, In Downes v. Bidwell, the Court ruled that “exclusive” meant “without consideration of the Constitutional restraints…'' And if you follow the cites about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, this theme runs throughout them. For instance;

United States v. Cornell 25 Fed. Cas. 646, no. 14,867 C.C.D.R.I. 1819

[/QUOTE] ? It is under the like terms in the same clause of the constitution

that exclusive jurisdiction is now exercised by congress in the

District of Columbia ?[/QUOTE]

DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

Quote:

Third. Hence it is that wherever a power is given by the Constitution, and there is a limitation imposed on the authority, such restriction operates upon and confines every action on the subject within its constitutional limits. 3

Quote:

If, in limiting the power which Congress was to exercise within the United States, it was also intended to limit it with regard to such territories as the people of the United States should thereafter acquire, such limitations should have been expressed. Instead of that, we find the Constitution speaking only to states, except in the territorial clause, which is absolute in its terms, and suggestive of no limitations upon the power of Congress in dealing with them.

From the dissent, but Justice Harlan;

Quote:

In one of those opinions it is said that 'the Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the states;' also, that 'we find the Constitution speaking only to states, except in the territorial clause, which is absolute in its terms, and suggestive of no limitations upon the power of Congress in dealing with them.' I am not sure that I correctly interpret these words. But if it is meant, as I assume it is meant, that, with the exception named, the Constitution was ordained by the states, and is addressed to and operates only on the staes, I cannot accept that view.

Please note, as this is the entire thrust of DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) ;

Quote:

the Constitution was ordained by the states, and is addressed to and operates only on the sta(t)es

Often times, we learn more from a dissenting opinion, than we do from the affrimation by the court;

Quote:

Although, as we have just decided, [182 U.S. 244, 386] Porto Rico ceased, after the ratification of the treaty with Spain, to be a foreign country within the meaning of the tariff act, and became a domestic country,-'a territory of the United States,'-it is said that if Congress so wills it may be controlled and governed outside of the Constitution and by the exertion of the powers which other nations have been accustomed to exercise with respect to territories acquired by them; in other words, we may solve the question of the power of Congress under the Constitution by referring to the powers that may be exercised by other nations. I cannot assent to this view. I reject altogether the theory that Congress, in its discretion, can exclude the Constitution from a domestic territory of the United States, acquired, and which could only have been acquired, in virtue of the Constitution. I cannot agree that it is a domestic territory of the United States for the purpose of preventing the application of the tariff act imposing duties upon imports from foreign countries, but not a part of the United States for the purpose of enforcing the constitutional requirement that all duties, imposts, and excises imposed by Congress 'shall be uniform throughout the United States.' How Porto Rico can be a domestic territory of the United States, as distinctly held in De Lima v. Bidwell, and yet, as is now held, not embraced by the words 'throughout the United States,' is more than I can understand.

The entire thrust of Downes is the EXCLUSIVE means exactly that, EXCLUSIVE, without restraint. There can be no other understanding, in my view.

[richard9151]

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 cites. I must first review my library material.

Bing

[post=”3976″][/post]

PLEASE NOTE; THE ONLY CITE WHICH WILL SUFFICE IS A CITE WHICH IS FROM AN ADJUDICATION ABOUT THE MARYLAND SUCCESSION OF LAND. NOTHING ELSE WILL SUFFICE: AS INDICATED FROM THIS POST AND THE USE OF THE WORD, THEORY, SUCH A CITE DOES NOT EXIST.

ANY OTHER CITE THAT YOU FIND WILL ONLY BE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AS CONGRESS HAS EXTENDED IT TO THE DISTRICT AND POSSESSIONS (DOES NOT MATTER IS THIS IS ADMITTED IN THE CASE LAW; THIS IS STILL WHAT IS GOING ON), WHICH MAKES THE CONSTITUTION A CREATURE OF THE CONGRESS.

PLEASE, BEFORE YOU REPLY, READ THE FIRST POST I PUT UP ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION NOT APPLYING TO THE DISTRICT, AS IT HAS ADDITIONAL POINTS IN IT. THANK YOU, AND GLAD TO BE HERE.

I THINK, AFTER WE SETTLE THIS, YOU WILL ENJOY MY NEXT POST AS WELL.

[richard9151]

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 CANNOT be taken backward, and one of them is removing the protections of the Constitution to land under federal control.  They said that even within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, the protections of the Constitution cannot be removed without at least the consent of the state legislature that ceded the district.

Quote:

?There could be no doubt as to the correctness of this conclusion, so far, at least, as it applied to the District of Columbia. This District had been a part of the states of Maryland and [182 U.S. 244, 261] Virginia. It had been subject to the Constitution, and was a part of the United States[***]. The Constitution had attached to it irrevocably. There are steps which can never be taken backward. The tie that bound the states of Maryland and Virginia to the Constitution could not be dissolved, without at least the consent of the Federal and state governments to a formal separation. The mere cession of the District of Columbia to the Federal government relinquished the authority of the states, but it did not take it out of the United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution. Neither party had ever consented to that construction of the cession. If, before the District was set off, Congress had passed an unconstitutional act affecting its inhabitants, it would have been void. If done after the District was created, it would have been equally void; in other words, Congress could not do indirectly, by carving out the District, what it could not do directly. The District still remained a part of the United States, protected by the Constitution. Indeed, it would have been a fanciful construction to hold that territory which had been once a part of the United States ceased to be such by being ceded directly to the Federal government.?

[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

Virigina took back the land that it ceded, leaving only the Maryland side. The District is no longer 10 miles square, but everything owned by Virginia is now back in the hands of Virginia and the district is only about 60 square miles instead of 100 square miles. Maryland never consented to remove the protections of the Constitution by legislative enactment, so it always was covered following the ratification of the Constitution. The enactment you reference at 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34 (1871).) would therefore appear to be an unnecessary formality.

The United States government, by enforcing the income tax outside the district and outside the federal zone, DOES violate the constitution. It only applies within the district and the Virgin Islands and the Social Security Act creates the Social Security trust that is the proper subject of the income tax. Those who participate become trustees and “public officers”, but the separation of powers doctrine at 4 USC 72, which derives from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, STILLL mandates that all “public offices” must be exercised in the district AND NOT ELSEWHERE. Note that the I.R.C. Subtitle A income tax is upon a “trade or business”, which is defined as “the functions of a public office”. Therefore, it can only extend to places where public offices have been “expressly extended” by Congress, which means the District of Columbia and all other places by legislative enactment.

Congress has NOT “expressly extended” the public offices to any state of the Union and has only extended it to the Virgin Islands under 48 USC 1612. Therefore, the tax can only apply in D.C. and the Virgin Islands and NOT elsewhere. It is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

1. To enforce the income tax outside of the District of Columbia or the Virgin Islands.

2. To enforce it against anyone who is not a “public officer”.

3. To condone LIES of the IRS that extend their jurisdiction beyond these places. See:

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

4. To use the W-4 as the equivalent of BOTH a federal withholding document AND a federal job (public office) application.

5. To allow anyone not otherwise employed with the federal government to volunteer to become a “public office”.

6. To create “public offices” in states of the Union, where Congress enjoys NO LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION”

Quote:

?It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 307H247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.??

[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 308H298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]

For those who are in fact are “public officers” of the United States government and who took a oath, it is NOT unconstitutional for Congress to enforce ONLY against them, but not against anyone else. Pursuing federal employment or public office and the taking of such oaths are VOLUNTARY acts. The Thirteenth Amendment only outlaws INVOLUNTARY servitude, not VOLUNTARY servitude. Those who have not taken an oath of office cannot lawfully sign up for Social Security or any other federal benefit, because these programs can ONLY be offered to persons who ALREADY took an oath as public officers. If the government accepts application from persons who are not in fact OTHERWISE federal employees, they are submitting a FALSE CLAIM cognizable under the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729.

You are also correct that most of the people that protest the income tax and continue to voluntarily participate in Social Security at the same time are HYPOCRITES and IDIOTS. That would appear to be the reason why, IMHO, you cannot join SEDM without both quitting Social Security and correcting your citizenship with the federal government. This prevents such idiots and hypocrites from joining and discrediting and injuring both themselves and the ministry. See their member agreement:

http://sedm.org/Membership/MemberAgreement.htm

That also explains why every one of their training courses on taxes in the Liberty University begins with an admonition warning people to pay for all the government services they use. That would appear to mean that if you are going to collect Social Security, then you ought to pay the other taxes that go with it. See:

http://sedm.org/LibertyU/Taxes.pdf

[post=”3968″][/post]

---

Thank you. I have asked this question in many places, and have never received a detailed answer. But you raise a couple of others as well. It is a given that what you say is correct, so how does this fit into the equation:

Quote:

''In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791, he declares the district of Columbia to be created and its borders established, he says further:

  “And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States…”

This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of… .  This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of…, but is actually the District State.  Subjection of the States of… was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.

Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, Sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.  (Now, while this was an act that had no basis in law or in the Constitution, there is a function in law called time.  What this means that even an illegal act becomes a moot point after sufficient time has passed.  Since more than two hundred years has passed since George gifted us with the federal district states, you can safely assume that no challenge based on this being un-Constitutional will be successful.  However, as you will see later, there is another solution to the problem. ? David)

The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, over the District.  Washington extended this District without Constitutional authority.  Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the District States.  As a result of the military rule imposed by Washington, District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States.  THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED.  The Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him additional powers, thereby HE created District States,

Given that what you say is correct, then Washington was the first man to, knowingly, violate the Constitution, and he did so for two reasons; to crush the tax protestors (whiskey rebellion) and to facilitate the movement of the First Bank of the United States into the several states (where the bank was then free to operate under the law of the flag).

IF, what I just wrote is correct, and I have no reason not to think it is, then it brings a whole new meaning to the Civil War and why it was fought.

I need to think this through somewhat. Because we still have the issue of the Republic and the Democracy, both of which have existed since the adoption of the Constitution, side-by-side. And, the issue of two Constitutions.

Thank you for your wonderfully detailed reply. Richard

[richard9151]

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,' showing them the information that I posted, and most of them simply will not answer, nor communicate about why they consider themselves to be correct. Is this because they have a vested interest in what they are doing, and thus right or wrong is not important?

Pretty scary, that, cause they have damaged a lot of people over this.

Now, given that Social Security is the Income Tax, then the following is interesting;

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows:

S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 Made 22nd of July 1997 coming into force 1st September 1997. At the Court at Buckingham Palace the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her Majesty and pursuance of section 179 (1) (a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is please, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:

“This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997.”

---

Yes, the above is from Stephen Kimbol Ames, and shows that Social Security, as operated by the Crown of England, is definitely the world wide taxing system that we were told is yet to come. Obviously, it is already here.

This would also explain why United States citizens can be taxed to pay for bailing out other nations.

My question in this is; I was told, some time ago, that Social Security came to the United States via the International Treaty on Labor (in 1933?), but I have never been able to find the site. Can anyone clear this up for me? Thank you.

[richard9151]

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 able to understand people who sign anything that is put in front of them and then are surprised to find out that what they signed is considered a contract…. a BINDING contract.

And these same people accept that if they are told they 'must' sign, go right ahead and sign without understanding what it is that they sign!