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

my plan

Expand Messages
  • mobinem@aol.com
    Here is something I am going to try. I will get 3 medical doctors to sign affidavits verifying I am a human being . I will then record these documents in the
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 2 11:38 PM
      Here is something I am going to try.
       
      I will get 3 medical doctors to sign affidavits verifying I am a "human being". I will then record these documents in the county recorders office and file a case for a declaratory judgement establishing the validity of my claims, as witnessed and verified by the doctors. This precedent will mean any corporation or government agency that attempts to dispute this fact and treat me as a "person" will have to first disprove the afore mentioned facts.Read the following to understand why.
       
      There appears to be no precedent and no use of the following section against the IRS. But, this is a big but, the Clayton Act makes a very obvious distinction between person and human being. Therefore, there is a congressionally approved distinction which would allow anyone to demand the court to verify the distinction before proceeding. My take on this is that a man could force the prosecution to inform the jury which he was being tried as, a "person" under the legal definition or as a human being. This question alone could be used to invalidate a case on the due process clause. I doubt the IRS wants most people to know there is a difference.  
       
      If the court says I am both, I am still protected.
       
      See the following.

      § 6 Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 17

      Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations

      The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.

      §7 Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18

      Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another

      No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.

      John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects

      623-206-4339
      mobinem@...
      c/o postal service location
      21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
      Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf




      See what's free at AOL.com.
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Somewhere I read that human being really means a monster in the law. I don t know where it came from, but I ve heard it often enough to try to stick with
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 3 9:28 PM
        > Here is something I am going to try.
        >
        > I will get 3 medical doctors to sign affidavits verifying I am a
        > "human being".

        Somewhere I read that "human being" really means a monster in the law.
        I don't know where it came from, but I've heard it often enough to try
        to stick with "man" or "woman" as the case may be.

        I'll let the administrator prove his competence by telling his superiors
        that I'm a real human being after I testify to being a man and say some
        other words for effect.

        Regards,

        FF
      • mobinem@aol.com
        Black s Law does not list a definition for human or human being. That monster thing comes from the same place BAR means British Accredited what ever..
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 4 9:21 AM
          Black's Law does not list a definition for human or human being. That monster thing comes from the same place BAR means British Accredited what ever..
           
          John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects

          623-206-4339
          mobinem@...
          c/o postal service location
          21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
          Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf




          See what's free at AOL.com.
        • one
          ... In tax matters the federal government does not proceed against a human being. They say a natural person is such as the Creator made us, however, a natural
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 8 6:28 PM
            On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 02:38 -0400, mobinem@... wrote:
            > Here is something I am going to try.
            >
            > I will get 3 medical doctors to sign affidavits verifying I am a
            > "human being". I will then record these documents in the county
            > recorders office and file a case for a declaratory judgement
            > establishing the validity of my claims, as witnessed and verified by
            > the doctors. This precedent will mean any corporation or government
            > agency that attempts to dispute this fact and treat me as a "person"
            > will have to first disprove the afore mentioned facts.Read the
            > following to understand why.
            >
            ------------------------------------

            In tax matters the federal government does not proceed against a human
            being.
            They say a natural person is such as the Creator made us, however, a
            natural person with prescribed obligations, duties, privileges, or
            relative rights is an artificial person.
            All men when they enter political society adopt an artificial character
            and capacity which their status in that society determines.
            All born on territory under the Constitution for the United States of
            America or of the United States of America enter political society with
            at least one title of citizen. If they are born, or enter political
            society originally, in the District of Columbia, they enter political
            society with the titles of citizen of the United States and citizen of
            the District of Columbia.

            Do the States proceed against a human being ? No, the 14th amendment
            requires the States to give due process of law and equal protection of
            law to all persons, including aliens.

            People are not volunteering into United States and State residency
            citizenship; they cannot work in many circumstances without it. The
            rights to contract freely, employ freely, and work freely have been
            destroyed by the power to tax.

            And, many, in the end, cannot afford to refuse free credits which
            substitute, inadequately, for the credits taken in tax previously.

            The country was communized by the adoption of all ten planks of the
            communist manifesto before we entered political society. All you can
            do, until they outlaw it, is sign By You, to show your interests are not
            identical to those of the citizenship person(s). Some are also
            copyrighting NAME.
          • mobinem@aol.com
            I think you are missing the point. There are no human beings in the US. My idea is to get people to start becoming human beings again. We need their
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 8 7:48 PM
              I think you are missing the point. There are no human beings in the US. My idea is to get people to start becoming human beings again. We need their jurisdiction to recognize us as human beings, not persons. The way to get them to do this is to record the affidavits it their recorders office. Once recorded the document stands as fact in their jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction can not talk to human beings, only persons. I am ok with never talking to them.
               
              John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects

              623-206-4339
              mobinem@...
              c/o postal service location
              21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
              Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf




              See what's free at AOL.com.
            • Richard Gieser
              To better understand the whole thing about the difference between human beings and artificial government created persons who are subject to the irs and other
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 8 10:10 PM
                To better understand the whole thing about the difference between human beings and artificial government created persons "who" are subject to the irs and other federal juristiction there is no better reference than Patrick Riots book "Invisible Contracts". Most of the contents comes from George Mercier, a court clerk in federal district court in New York, now deceased. I have not yet finished reading it. I find it difficult reading because of the complexity and also the disturbing content. Please read it. It explains how "the powers that be" presume control over us and what you can do about it.
                 
                Richard Gieser


                Get your own web address.
                Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
              • D R
                People are not persons. instead of searching for human being, do a search on people, you know we the people in order to perform a more perfect union ....
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 8 11:50 PM

                  People are not persons. instead of searching for human being, do a search on people, you know "we the people" in order to perform a more perfect union ....

                  YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)

                  Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.

                   

                  For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

                  The Articles of Confederation uses "free inhabitants", those would not be persons.

                  An early 1800s Bouviers defined a human being as a monster in some way. I have relooked for it, but have not [been able to locate] it. May have to visit a law library.



                  I think you are missing the point. There are no human beings in the US. My idea is to get people to start becoming human beings again. We need their jurisdiction to recognize us as human beings, not persons. The way to get them to do this is to record the affidavits it their recorders office. Once recorded the document stands as fact in their jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction can not talk to human beings, only persons. I am ok with never talking to them.
                • bradmarina@AOL.com
                  PEOPLE. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in iis collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467. 2. The
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 9 8:46 AM

                    PEOPLE. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in iis collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467.

                    2. The word people occurs in a policy of insurance. The insurer insures against "detainments of all kings, princes and people." He is not by this understood to insure against any promiscuous or lawless rabble which may be guilty of attacking or detaining a ship. 2 Marsh. Ins. 508. - Vide Body litic; Nation.

                                                    Bouvier's Law Dictionary  1856





                    See what's free at AOL.com.
                  • mobinem@aol.com
                    I have Mercier s original book. What I found is where the government made the actual distinct. This discovery gives us an opportunity to make them prove which
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 9 9:02 AM
                      I have Mercier's original book. What I found is where the government made the actual distinct. This discovery gives us an opportunity to make them prove which one we are, or we can prove it our selves.
                       
                      John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects

                      623-206-4339
                      mobinem@...
                      c/o postal service location
                      21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
                      Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf




                      See what's free at AOL.com.
                    • mobinem@aol.com
                      I know all this. The point is most people think they are a person. This is evidence of the fraud. John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects 623-206-4339
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 9 9:14 AM
                        I know all this. The point is most people think they are a person. This is evidence of the fraud.
                         
                        John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects

                        623-206-4339
                        mobinem@...
                        c/o postal service location
                        21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
                        Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf




                        See what's free at AOL.com.
                      • mobinem@aol.com
                        That monster thing is incorrect. Bouviers says a monster may have human characteristics only hideously deformed. John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 9 9:15 AM
                          That monster thing is incorrect. Bouviers says a monster may have human characteristics only hideously deformed.
                           
                          John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects

                          623-206-4339
                          mobinem@...
                          c/o postal service location
                          21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
                          Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf




                          See what's free at AOL.com.
                        • mobinem@aol.com
                          People and person are not the same thing. Person is always defined per section or code. John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects 623-206-4339
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jul 9 10:03 AM
                            People and person are not the same thing. Person is always defined per section or code.
                             
                            John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects

                            623-206-4339
                            mobinem@...
                            c/o postal service location
                            21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
                            Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf




                            See what's free at AOL.com.
                          • one
                            ... I don t think so. Now it is my great honor to introduce the person who has done more for this church than anyone else in the congregation. People think
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jul 9 8:59 PM
                              On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 12:14 -0400, mobinem@... wrote:
                              > I know all this. The point is most people think they are a person.
                              > This is evidence of the fraud.

                              I don't think so. "Now it is my great honor to introduce the person who
                              has done more for this church than anyone else in the congregation."
                              People think they are a person because that's normal usage in English.
                              The 4th amendment says the people are to be secure in their persons.

                              The fraud is in leading people to believe Government is ever anything
                              but their adversary. If people had that fixed in their minds, they
                              would not accept one syllable without suspiciously questioning the
                              utterer as to his meaning.

                              Our greatest adversaries in Government sit on benches and the higher the
                              bench, the greater and more subtle the adversary. They know we have
                              these rights; they just concede as little as possible as grudgingly as
                              possible.

                              John Marshal wrote in Bank of Maryland v. Oakey that the right to trial
                              by jury in the seventh amendment was lex pro se introducta; that is,
                              it could be waived. That's basically the judge's attitude toward all
                              the rights. I think that attitude is a great breach of duty. But, they
                              are on the bench.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.