Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    The subject line was chosen by Daum for his own message. It is a continuation of the Is IRS foreign to the Constitution-The Informer thinks not discussion.
    Message 1 of 2 , May 30, 2007
      The subject line was chosen by Daum for his own message. It is a
      continuation of the "Is IRS foreign to the Constitution-The Informer
      thinks not" discussion. I don't know who the "loser" is supposed to be,
      but maybe it's anyone who sees no hope in the face of a tyrannical
      military dictatorship.

      This is a forwarded message in which I had no part of the exchange.
      Nothing stated is my choice of words whether I may agree with them or
      not. I am forwarding it only for the usefulness to those who see any in
      the proposition that we have a right to the original judicial branch if
      we still have any rights at all. I had to delete an attachment to post
      to this list. It was a .pdf of the Chisholm case.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:04 AM
      To: James Alan Daum

      **On May 28, 2007, at 10:36 AM, James Alan Daum wrote: "That agency
      exercised the powers of war and peace..."**

      To be correct I only QUOTED this excerpt and did not write it myself.

      **My suspicion on this case is that the court was recognizing the war
      powers extant in the then current commander in chief. No peace treaty
      concluded the open state of war between the US and Germany. In matters
      of war the executive branch, now under the Constitution, does exercise a
      form of sovereignty called "martial law." **

      My thoughts are that the JUSTICES were sucking up to Roosevelt so he
      wouldn't add his own socialists to their bench.

      Admit a spade is a damned shovel. It is flatly a military dictatorship!

      **Best I read it, this is the only time that the government of the US,
      created by that Constitution, might claim the powers of a sovereign,
      rather than the rather limited enumerated powers defined by that

      You didn't believe me when I said that I would fight with friends as
      well as enemies? Intelligent people resist learning something
      different. The Constitution for the United States of America is
      government that creates divisions of administration.

      The congress, executives and judges are limited from exercising absolute
      power but get around it because they are also PEOPLE with the Police
      Power of CitizensC. Read "Chisholm" again. (H.I.)

      "From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and
      Governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their
      respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern;
      a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that
      resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince;
      here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers
      the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the
      agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their
      sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their
      Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers
      have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty
      otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens."
      CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GEORGIA, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

      ** It seems obvious to me that a government cannot be both "limited" and
      "sovereign." That said, tho, once the Congress exercises its power to
      declare war, then the exec branch, in full possession of war power,
      gains an exceptional form of "sovereignty," otherwise absent under its
      civil powers and duties. **

      You're fighting me! The administration is limited, and maybe the PEOPLE
      but not the sovereignty. (I'm confusing myself now...see above and read
      through "Chisholm.")

      **No treaty ended Wilson's war. Congress again declared war on Germany.
      Again, there was/is no Peace Treaty. (Tho there are treaties with Japan,
      Italy and the lesser Axis powers ending those declared states of war). I
      find this simple matter of fact (the open state of war) to be a virtual
      secret here. It explains so much, yet it's almost perfectly ignored by
      those who attempt to study the matter.**

      I think YOU proved to me that hostilities never ceased. It WAS you
      wasn't it? Can you send me a summary of that with some official

      Among the cases I read is one about Prussian assets in America being
      stolen during the war and never returned. (No I can't remember which
      one it was) I can't help but think that Jacob Schiff
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff> advised Woodrow Wilson on
      the profitability of war. He certainly financed the expansion of the
      Japanese Empire all the way to Pearl Harbor...

      "During the Russo-Japanese War
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War> , in 1904
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1904> and 1905
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905> , in perhaps his most famous
      financial action, Schiff, again through Kuhn, Loeb & Co., extended a
      critical series of loans to Japan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan> ,
      in the amount of $200 million. He was willing to extend this loan due,
      in part, to his belief that gold is not as important as national effort
      and desire, in helping win a war, and due to the apparent underdog
      status of Japan at the time; no European nation had ever been defeated
      by a non-European nation before then. It is quite likely Schiff also saw
      this loan as a means of taking revenge, on behalf of the Jewish people,
      for the anti-Semitic actions of the Tsarist regime, specifically the
      then-recent pogroms <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom> in Kishinev
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishinev> ."

      Apparently, the congress never ratified the Treaty of Versailles
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Presidency_1913-1921> to
      accomodate Wilson...

      **In turn, I ignore most of what the court says since 1918. It's sitting
      in Martial Jurisdiction, rather than civil. It's in a place where, well,
      sure, it views a government as sovereign. It is sovereign (in a
      gun-in-your-face sort of way) - until the c-in-c negotiates and the
      Senate ratifies a Treaty of Peace with Germany. **

      Courts don't talk. You are only hearing what corrupt judges say.

      I am the only one that has ever identified the CLERICAL COURT. There
      had always been competition between the temporal and spiritual
      jurisdictions until Henry VIII made himself the head of the church.
      Afterwards treason and heresy became indistinguishable while Henry made
      the royal Star Chamber a truncheon of the crown.

      Subsequently, the lay politicians returned to business and left the
      tribunals in the tentacles of the attorneys who modeled them upon the
      crown magistracies complete with divine impunity.

      Where a cult priest is able to damn you is a temple of his cabal. Learn
      to take your case to constitutional court. You won't defeat them this
      easily but you may keep them from disposing of you as an incompetent.

    • Frog Farmer
      ... From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:21 PM To: James Alan Daum Subject: Re: LOSER FROM LOSERVILLE
      Message 2 of 2 , May 30, 2007
        -----Original Message-----
        From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:21 PM
        To: James Alan Daum
        Subject: Re: LOSER FROM LOSERVILLE

        **Actually, you have lived long enough for the appearance to be given
        that it happened. And the CinC never had unfettered power to take over.
        He still doesn't. The CinC is just one of many elected servants
        inhabiting three separate branches or departments of goferment�. All of
        those servants have taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the
        Constitution. Treason, failure to preserve, protect and defend the
        Constitution, is punishable by death.**

        Ahem? COMMANDER AND CHIEF? This guy is already a one-man junta staging
        a coup d'etat that has essentially bankrupted this country.

        "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
        United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

        There is a reason that they are called the ARMED FORCES!

        **What you have seen is the practice of FEAR. It is an acronym for False
        Evidence Appearing Real. Most believe the false. Hence they cannot
        understand ruling your servants in a republican manner, preferring
        instead the lie that they are ruled by masters.**

        It is not an acronym. What you are seeing is the fear of the founders
        that a strong military is expensive and dangerous.

        **Ooooowwwwww, the least you could do is argue! ;-)
        Yes, the majority are content to be told where to crap in their own
        beds. What is needed is a tireless irate minority keen to set brushfires
        in the minds of men, to expose the lies that are taught by willfully
        ignorant bureaucrats whose purpose is to entrench their position at the
        public trough at the expense of the education of the Children of the

        You're back on the public education system? I have mixed feelings about
        it since I learned to read, write and count there. Wouldn't it be
        better if people bred less so there were fewer children to educate?

        **We are on opposite sides of a semantical argument. There is a state
        and there is the state. One is the people assembled. The other is a
        conglomeration of bureaucrats intent on shedding the chains of servitude
        and donning the Holy Vestments belonging to the Ever Living One and
        acting in His stead. It was the state of people who risked their lives.
        It was not the state of bureaucrats, whose putrid stench befouls the
        land, that took up the weapons to drive out a tyrant.**

        Pretty graphic there...

        "L'�tat, c'est moi"

        I simply refuse to see the state as a creature and you can't make me!
        Nyah, nyah, nyah! Such beast would be a Reich...

        **You make a distinction without a difference. A man ruling another man
        is tyranny, no matter how benign the rule. The ideal is for all to be
        ruled by the [Creator] of the Universe by whose power all exists, and to live
        in loving fear of turning to the right or the left instead of walking in
        the Way. From where I sit, the local mayor or council member are petty
        tyrants ruling their little fiefdoms and using the weight of bureaucracy
        to inflict their own peculiar brand of tyranny on the people. Both
        George's are different sides of the same coin.**

        ACTUALLY, I don't want anarchy.

        **I agree that the enacted Thirteenth circa 1812 was superfluous--if in
        fact it was ever enacted. The Constitution was (and remains unchanged)
        chains upon the departments and their minions, not the people. The
        minions were prohibited from creating royal offices for themselves from
        the power granted to fulfill the missions granted to them.**

        This was stated well enough that I'm not going to give you an argument
        over it.

        **The "clues" are a deception. I refuse to believe that an ass is a god.
        The Constitution as enacted in 1787 and amended in 1791 continues to be
        the law for our servants. Our families left us law as a weapon to whip
        servants who would be tyrants back into line. We need to be doing more
        whipping. The only weapons they have are money to hire goons and thugs
        to ignore the law and intimidate us. The more of us who take money away
        from these tyrants the less power they have. We ought to be about our
        Father's business. He said the children are free.**

        The additional articles clarify and strengthen the main body and are not
        exceptions as you might define amendments. Hamilton opposed them as
        they would seem to give additional powers to the Reich.

        "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain
        every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE
        PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to
        ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution
        for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of
        popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal
        figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound
        much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of
        government." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 84

        "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the
        extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the
        proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain
        various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account,
        would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For
        why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to
        do?" Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 84

        **Presidents are constrained by an oath to preserve, protect and defend
        the Constitution also. They are constrained to specific powers and
        reasonable and necessary powers to enforce the specific powers. It is
        only by illusion that they seem empowered to rule. They are not so

        You depend more upon the oath of a madman than I. What if his illusion
        is that he is the personification of the state? What if the masses
        share this illusion? What will you do when they come for you?

        **There is some confusion on the term and I suspect I should have
        defined "federalist" before I used it. The federalism that I hate is
        that which calls for a strong central government of men who rule others.
        I support your definition as being an honorable calling.**

        Is the position of War Czar still open?

        fascism 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- noun Italian fascismo, from fascio
        bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
        1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as
        that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the
        individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government
        headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
        regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
        2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or
        dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J.
        W. Aldridge>
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.