The 14th Amendment provides them with the cover needed for their
claim to jurisdiction. Without it, we would not be in the mess we are
today in America.--- In legality-of-income-
tax@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis M. Mudd" <dmmudd1@...> wrote:
>
> It has always been my understanding that unless a capital federal
crime was
> committed ON GOVERNMENT OWNED TERRITORY that a federal court and
the DOJ
> HAVE NO JURISDICTION. How soon people forget that UNLESS authority
is
> CLEARLY granted to the government by the constitution then that
authority
> remains with the State or the People thus the reason for juries.
Regardless
> of what many idiots out there think governments authority over the
people
> and the States is EXTREMELY limited. The constitution makes that
FACT very
> clear WITHOUT any interpretation needed. The constitution was
written in
> PLAIN English NOT legalese.
>
>
>
> Dennis M. Mudd
>
> _____
>
> From: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
wmgreenesr
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 8:53 PM
> To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: the 6700 lawsuit against Bob
Schulz is
> really et al.!!!!
>
>
>
> Hi Ron!
>
> Although I certainly had some understanding of what you speak, the
> more I thought about it the more it seemed to me that had Bob tried
> to argue a lack of jurisdiction involving the Not-For-Profit
> Corporations in connection with We The People Foundation For
> Constitutional Education and We The People Congress, well, I don't
> think that would have flown in the first place, and it probably
would
> have a negative impact on the Appeal process as well.
>
> I'm one of those who think the Income Tax issue should have been
> taken on separately as a form of Slavery that is typically
associated
> with "Persons Under the Law", "Subjects" or "Slaves". But, be that
> as it may, the jurisdictional relation to territorial law is that
the
> court's jurisdiction itself is limited to that of "Persons Under
the
> Law", "Subjects" or "Slaves", whereas the Rights of Sovereigns,
that
> is We, The People, are those Rights with which the Constitution and
> Bill of Rights are concerned.
>
> So, yes, all too often the issue of jurisdiction is ignored. But,
> again, Not-For-Profit Corporations are creatures of the state and
as
> such are "Persons Under the Law." Moreover, because of Bob's
special
> relationship to the Not-For-Profit Corporations, I believe that he
> did, in fact, Subject himself, for our benefit, to those same
> jurisdictional relationships of territorial law. So, I don't think
> that would have flown in the first place, and again, it probably
> would have a negative impact on the Appeal process as well.
>
> Blessings,
> Bill
>
> --- In legality-of- <mailto:legality-of-income-tax%
40yahoogroups.com>
> income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald L. Weston" <r-
> weston@> wrote:
> >
> > Look, you appear in a federal court that has no jurisdiction and
> begin arguing your case you have subjected yourself to territorial
> law. In territorial law the constitution means next to nothing. The
> only rights you may have under territorial law are those that
> congress allows.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: wmgreenesr
> > To: legality-of- <mailto:legality-of-income-tax%40yahoogroups.com>
> income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 23:35
> > Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: the 6700 lawsuit against
> Bob Schulz is really et al.!!!!
> >
> >
> > Hi Ron!
> >
> > Well, I guess what I was thinking was, in the context of
> statements
> > like the court made in Miranda v. Arizona, wouldn't a ruling
> which
> > abrogates the Capstone Right be an act of judicial misconduct?
> >
> > "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
> be
> > no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them" Miranda
> v.
> > Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491
> >
> > And, if so, what about trying to make an online list of cases
> which
> > would support such an action available for Bob Schulz et al. ?
> >
> > Blessings,
> > Bill
> >
> > --- In legality-of- <mailto:legality-of-income-tax%
40yahoogroups.com>
> income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald L. Weston"
> <r-
> > weston@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The problem is, the case was tried in a court having no
> > jurisdiction and it wasn't challenged. When will everyone learn
> what
> > the jurisdiction of the federal courts amounts to?
> > >
> > > By not challenging it, the court was granted it:
> > >
> > > "'Jurisdiction' is of two kinds--one of the subject, the other
> of
> > the parties--and both must exist in order to authorize the court
> to
> > try and determine the cause. Unless the law gives the court
> > jurisdiction of the subject, jurisdiction cannot be acquired by
> the
> > consent of the parties; but, if the law gives jurisdiction of the
> > subject, the court may acquire jurisdiction of the parties by
> their
> > consent...But if B., without challenging the jurisdiction of the
> > court, should file his answer pleading to the merits, neither
> party
> > could afterwards question the jurisdiction of the court because
> by
> > their actions they are conclusively presumed to have consented to
> > give
> > >
> > > the court jurisdiction of their persons--that is, their
> personal
> > rights--in that case." - State ex rel. Furstenfeld v. Nixon, Mo.,
> 133
> > S.W. 340, @ 342
> > >
> > >
> > > Read and study the attached real good. It is an abbreviated
> portion
> > from my document "ABC's of Government Theft".
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: wmgreenesr
> > > To: legality-of- <mailto:legality-of-income-tax%
40yahoogroups.com>
> income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 23:41
> > > Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] RE: the 6700 lawsuit against
> > Bob Schulz is really et al.!!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > As I'm sure you are aware, the government lied in its 6700
> > lawsuit
> > > against Bob Schulz by claiming that all of us fraudulently
> > terminated
> > > withholding of federal income and employment taxes and thereby
> > > exposed ourselves to criminal liability.
> > >
> > > And all this time, I thought it was our Constitutional Rights
> to
> > do
> > > so!!! I guess the District Court sees otherwise!!!
> > >
> > > Because, the kicker is that within its Decision and Order, the
> > > District Court has also accepted the claim that it is a false
> > > statement of fact that we, and other taxpayers, have the right
> > > to "retain our money until our grievances are redressed
> > (remedied)."
> > > That's right, the District Court has just affirmed that our
> > > constitutional Right to Petition with our Capstone Right
> doesn't
> > > exist in reality; the following quote is from page 9:
> > >
> > > ".Defendants further claim that the IRS is prohibited by the
> > Fourth
> > > and Fifth Amendments from compelling people to sign and file
> > income
> > > tax returns. Schulz Decl. #1 at Ex. C. Defendants also claim
> that
> > > they, and other taxpayers, have the right to "retain[] [their]
> > money
> > > until [their] grievances are redressed (remedied)." Schulz
> Decl.
> > #1
> > > at Ex. H, p.2.5 These are all false statements of fact."
> > >
> > > I didn't know a District Court had the right characterizing the
> > > People's First Amendment and Capstone Rights as Frivolous Acts
> or
> > > acts in the promotion of a "tax scheme" and "tax fraud." Go
> > figure???
> > >
> > > In any event, I guess I and my wife must be special because to
> my
> > > knowledge we are the only ones who have received our own copy
> of
> > the
> > > IRS's Special 6700 Tax Fraud Award, and we are not even named
> in
> > that
> > > particular suit.
> > >
> > > Blessings,
> > > Bill
> > >
> >
>