stija
Forum Replies Created
'Admin' wrote:All cases brought against state actors in state court cannot cite 42 USC 1983 and ONLY must bring up constitutional violations of PRIVATE rights. Statutes should not be raised in state court because they only protect state actors. If you cite said state civil statutes, you are indirectly admitting to being a state actor, as covered in:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The best chance of winning in a state court against a state actor is to demand a jury trial. Otherwise, the judge is going to protect his fellow thieves and liars and no one else. And in doing so, he will become a criminal himself as a person with a conflict of interest. That conflict of interest is usually financial, because he is protecting state PLUNDER that pays his future retirement. It's all about the money, unfortunately.
If a private person filed suit on constitutional grounds and used civil statutes as proof of authority for civil servants/agencies ONLY, that wouldn't be admitting that the person is a civil servant. In other words, the private person would not be citing civil statutes in his defense but only in respect to government's limited authority and to prove how the gov't agent/actor exceeded it. This would also be explicitly stated to avoid any presumptions.
I would still appreciate and opinion on a hypothetical scenario where a private individual sues a union state agency for constitutionally protected private rights' violations. Would it be wiser to ask for a remedy in a state or federal forum?
As Admin and I pointed out, in state court there is an obvious conflict of interest where you have a state officer presiding over the suit and trying his best to railroad the trial. On the other hand you have a federal officer presiding over the court who is not directly financially connected to the state but again would try his best to railroad the trial to avoid opening a pandoras box and setting precedent under which other private individuals could get a remedy.
In either case a jury trial would be requested. But which forum would be more friendly to such an individual?
Thanks Admin. Will go there this Friday.
Prollins, as Admin pointed out i was referring to the actual statutes. As Admin pointed out, sometimes the source is much more revealing than the current version of the “code”.
As a side note, can a civil action for deprivation of rights under color of law (42 USC 1983) be brought up in a union State Court? Or is it wiser just to just file a complaint for constitutional violations/torts?
Another thing to consider is how likely is a state court to rule against a state government/agency? On the flipside of this coin, would it be wiser to bring a civil action on constitutional violations against a state government/agency in a federal forum, where the presiding officer is not employed/connected to the states but will most likely try his best to avoid opening the pandoras box and rule in the plaintiffs favor (and expose the scam and set precedent).
When you send in your new birth certificate you could send in a letter of clarification as an addendum to your original application clarifying who you are and what the terms on the original application you filled out mean.
You could change jobs and that would give you until January 15, 2012 for IRS to find out where they can levy. Then about another 2-3 months for them to process and send the notice of levy to the new employer. That should give you almost a year to study everything on this website and learn how to theoritcally step out of the matrix.
Of course this is probably not the answer you were looking for but there.
What do you mean “he may have been a CIA asset”? He most certainly was a CIA asset and their creation. For all I know he may be living somewhere in Florida in a retirement community drawing a nice federal retirement.
That is of course if he existed at all and wasn't just some boogey man they created to play on TV to scare the sheeple into going along with their plans.
One thing I know for certain is that the story they are playing for us the sheeple is a lie. The rest I'll leave to your immaginations.
Franklin you are absolutely correct in that I should have said “I” instead of “we”.
Quote:If you mean the federal and state governments have not come out publicly beating their corporate breasts, declaring that they have misapplied the law all along, and please forgive us, we will refund with penalties and interest all of the money we stole from you and pay you damages for jail time because you weren't involved in a trade or business as we understand it…That is exactly what I meant, thanks for clarifying.
While federal agencies may “recognize” me as NRA (and they do) they continue to treat me as their whore or property and do whatever they please. So they may refer to me by Mr. NRA and be all polite, the fact that they rape me and threaten and steal my property all the same doesn't really work in my favor. So yes, you are correct in saying that feds to recognize us as NRAs. Heck they'd recognize you as anything you want. They have to, 1st amendment effectively makes them. But franklin, there is a world of difference between recognizing me as a NRA and treating me as one. That is what I was referring to.
Do i get an added benefit by declaring to be a non citizen national on my us passport application? Do I get to go around the molesters at the airports and avoid being unreasonably searched? Do i get an apology by a Mr. Policeman when I tell him that I am a NRA and not subjet to him and his code?
No I don't and I probably won't until the very last moment in a court of law. That is if they allow me the privilege of appearing in it.
How do you reconcile pg 66 definition of State to include 50 states?
I just happened to analyze this same law last night and, according to my limited search for definitions of words state and United States, I concluded that it is overreaching and unconstitutional in its mandates on state governments.
As usual, I could be wrong. But if one looks at their arguments in court it seems that they are pushing this through based on the commerce and general welfare clauses of the US Constitution. We should know that the two clauses do not authorize the government to force an entity to buy a product or be penalized nor does the welfare clause authorize the US govt to do anything that they deem to be for the general welfare. General welfare is implied to include the things explicitly granted through the US Constitution only otherwise what's the point of the chains of the Constitution if Congress can claim general welfare and then do anything they please.
In all fairness, I haven't looked if the term “nonresident alien” is defined. Will look now.
I guess you could argue that you are nonresident of any government, be it state or federal. But good luck with that. We can't even have them recognize that we do not reside in District of Columbia and apply the law as intended.
Unfortunately I would have to disagree with you Franklin, not on the issue of Mitchell's work or SEDM and Famguardian's powerful material, but rather on being able to achieve anything out of court. I've been ignored and taken for a loon when I present the issues to my employer or any of the state agencies that I had to deal with. The ONLY thing left is to litigate. Administrative hearings get you nowhere as the truth pill is too hard to swallow and no one is willing to take a chance. They would rather stay and play in the la-la land that is familiar to them rather than have their beliefs and practices discredited and face the truth.
Again, I am immenselfy thankful for this site and its sister site SEDM for providing guidance and education and am not trying to take away from them. I am simply trying to say that litigating (properly) is the only resource left, I believe. They've enjoyed this presumed authority for way too long and do not want to concede an inch let alone admit that they have been wrong on many issues. I am also aware that litigating may not get you anywhere as the presiding judge is an officer of the state and will most likely do anything to conceal the truth and twist the facts as to rule against us and for the corporation/state/agency whatever.
Just my thoughts. I hope that I am wrong and that you have had many great and successful administrative adventures with the parties you had to deal with however.
I can't open it through any of the links to read this for myself. Anyone else? I am talking about the oral arguments.
Canadian one is by far the best one.
I don't mean to hurt anyones feelings but….it seems to me that you (admin) usually become defensive and imply that you are right. That may very well be so (and usually is so), HOWEVER things are not crystal clear in our minds as they are in yours. This is precisely, I believe, why Neo keeps starting these discussions as to tenderize these concepts from every possible angle and get input from other members so that he can decide what he feels is the right or most correct approach to take.
Furthermore, we are playing a game here and as long as we don't break any rules i think that we need to find an approach that, even though may not be the most correct or the most right way of clarifying our status, will help us both breeze through the system and create presumptions and evidence that we are “outside” the system AND get the job done. In other, words not only do what is right, but do what works.
I have many times personally experienced that doing it right means not getting it done because low level (and high level too) HR clerks are not willing to listen and learn when they can simply refuse to accept your form/declarations.
Now as far as this discussion goes, i tend to agree with Admin in the sense that “citizen of U.S.” is the best and easiest approach. You both agree that clarifying what you mean is a must.
Neo, I too am experiencing “how can you be a U.S. Citizen but nonresident alien?” They even asked me if i am here illegally. Then they don't accept my w-8 because:
1. Is not an appropriate form for wages
2. I am U.S. Citizen and therefore cannot be nonresident
I tried many different approaches, from explaining verbally to mailing documentation to showing them court decisions confirming my statements. Nothing can change someones mind unless they are willing to change it.
Thanks. That is exactly what I needed.
I sadly believe that this “orchestrated” wikileak will lead to proposing legislation allowing Congress to censor information on the internet that is not deemed safe or may be a matter of national security. Congress will of course leave it to the executive dept to decide what actually is not safe and matter of national security.
Nothing that the gov't is involved in happens by accident.
hehe…I heard another version with grandma and a banker and her having his balls in her hand…..still very funny.
I think I have…heck this year they sent me a whole 1040NR booklet in a packet for nonresident aliens.
