My concept of the Clayont Act
- I would like to explain my reasoning a little better. Obviously, my discovery of the Calyton Act 17 has stirred the pot in a few different directions. Between the RBN radio show and Ed Brown posting it on his blog, a lot of people are also discovering this concept.Most of us understand the difference between involuntary servitude and voluntary servitude. Since the involuntary one is unlawful we can not be forced into it. We can, however, be tricked into it. Almost every code, act or the like redefines "person" in the article itself for itself. This is the trick. I have spent well over a decade of my life looking for one sentence in any act anywhere that expressed the intent and/or meaning of sovereign, sui juris, human, etc. My theory is that as long as they give us one sentence they can claim that the alteration of the definition is acceptable since we can go to that one sentence and claim our correct status. I believe all these corrupt officials sit back and think what they are doing is acceptable since we have never argued for ourselves to be considered a human being instead of a person.When I found that one sentence I stopped and read it several times, almost in shock. I double checked to see if human being is mentioned anywhere else in the Act, it is not. Then I verified that they gave their own definition of a person, they did. "Person, for this Act is defined as corporation and/or association". Bada boom, badabing, they did it. Inversely, this statute means the labor of a "person" is a commodity and an article in commerce, and is thusly taxable.A lot of people in a lot of different ways have attempted to claim themselves as a human being in various jurisdictions. My concept is to be considered a human being by them in their jurisdiction, who ever "they" are. My reasoning is that according to them, their jurisdiction can not talk to a human being and can not tax a human being's labor. As far as other jurisdictions, I am not having any issues with other jurisdictions.Once I have their licensed professionals sign affidavits claiming I am a human being and record the documents in their reorder's office, then they are agreeing that I am a human being in their jurisdiction. In essence and "strictly" adhered to, they are done with me. I am going to finish my documents and go to court to see if I can even get a judge to talk to me after acknowledging I am a human being.I am leaving for a week and can not work on this during that time. As soon as I get back I will be completing this process. I have several ongoing cases I can test my theory on and will keep updating everyone on my process.Feed back is appreciated, especially verified concepts. If sending a definition, please send a way to verify it. It is incredible how many people believe a some definition of a word given to them by a friend.John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects
c/o postal service location
21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf
See what's free at AOL.com.
- On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 14:14 -0400, mobinem@... wrote:
> Inversely, this statute means the labor of a "person" is a commodity------------------------------------
> and an article in commerce, and is thusly taxable.
Yes, the individual is a person whose hire of labor as a commodity and
an article in commerce is thus taxable as an incident of a franchise or
privilege by indirect taxation.
Employment of untaxed labor for hire is illegal in the good old USSA.
You can't even employ yourself without tax being demanded for the
There is no federal right to work for hire freely and immune from
taxation. Starvation is a time honored method for obtaining
Looks like you are on to something. Even the word "man" can be connotated as "person".
This is from Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition:
MAN. A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children; examples: "of offences against man, some are more immediately against the king, other's more immediately against the subject." Hawk. P. C. book 1, c. 2, s. 1. Offences against the life of man come under the general name of homicide, which in our law signifies the killing of a man by a man." Id. book 1, c. 8, s. 2.
2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things. Vide Barr. on the Stat. 216, note.I would like to explain my reasoning a little better. Obviously, my discovery of the Calyton Act 17 has stirred the pot in a few different directions. Between the RBN radio show and Ed Brown posting it on his blog, a lot of people are also discovering this concept.Most of us understand the difference between involuntary servitude and voluntary servitude. Since the involuntary one is unlawful we can not be forced into it. We can, however, be tricked into it. Almost every code, act or the like redefines "person" in the article itself for itself. This is the trick. I have spent well over a decade of my life looking for one sentence in any act anywhere that expressed the intent and/or meaning of sovereign, sui juris, human, etc.snip
- mobinem@... [mailto:mobinem@...] wrote:
> Once I have their licensed professionals sign affidavits claiming I amI don't have any citations or authorities, but I have lots of
> a human being and record the documents in their reorder's office, then
> they are agreeing that I am a human being in their jurisdiction. In
> essence and "strictly" adhered to, they are done with me. I am going
> to finish my documents and go to court to see if I can even get a
> judge to talk to me after acknowledging I am a human being.
> I am leaving for a week and can not work on this during that time. As
> soon as I get back I will be completing this process. I have several
> ongoing cases I can test my theory on and will keep updating everyone
> on my process.
> Feed back is appreciated, especially verified concepts. If sending a
> definition, please send a way to verify it. It is incredible how many
> people believe a some definition of a word given to them by a friend.
experience. I know that if pressed by persistent impersonators, I go
for a formal docketed administrative hearing on the record, to try to
get names of co-conspirators. Then the first thing I do is get them to
stipulate that I am a natural human being, born with all rights
possessed by the Founding Fathers. We go from there, on to their
qualifications to hear me speak. I never have to file proof that I'm a
natural human being, so far, and have not felt the need for expert
witnesses to that effect. All of these hearings have ended to my
So I think you're on to something.
I found this case that says that the term person is ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign.
Apparently "ordinarily" would be the exception to United States being considered sovereign.
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign;[and] statutes
employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979), quoting United States v. Cooper
Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941).
- Patriots: Please keep this going: Hauert was indicted on five counts Se. 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE etc. Hauert wanted to know the OFFENSE statute he was accused of violating and would be pleading guilty to. He wanted to know the particular statute that made him the person required to pay the income tax. His attorney (addressing the judge) "The prosecution has been trying to get my client to plea bargain. My client is interested but has a few demands of the prosecution in order to understand the charges and determine the potential guilt. He has a serious question that nobody will address. Will the court entertain that question?"Judge: "Certainly."Hauert: "Your honor, Section 7203 of the I.R. Code is a DIS-CIPLINARY STATUTE. It defines the penalty for someone who has broken the law. I need to know the underlying offense statute that is used to determine if I am the "any person" required to file. The term "any person" is ambiguous.Judge: "I don't know what he is asking for.(Looking at Prosecutor) Do you know what he's asking for?"Prosecutor: "No, your honor, I don't know what he's asking for either."Judge: "I am not knowledgeable of every law and can't be."
(Hey, isn't he presumed to to know the law?)Hauert: Could you please bring me the I.R. Code book with 7203 in it so I can show you what I am talking about. (note: the clerk brought in the I.R Code book.)Judge: (Reading Sec. 7203) " Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return..."Judge: "Sounds clear to me."Note: (In the words of Hauert) "I looked at the prosecuting attorney and criminal investigator looking business-like and smiling confidently and I thought, these suckers have gotten to the judge."Hauert: "May I see the book? (Reading) any person required by this Title.. What I am asking is, what statute establishes the FACT that I am one of these "persons" required, by this title, to pay the tax? Where, exactly, in the Title is the offense defined, where am I made the subject of the tax?" Note: (In the words of Hauert: "I then handed the judge back the book. Looking perplexed, the judge read those words over and over again for what felt like an eternity.")Judge: "So what you're asking for, Mr. Hauert, is the Statute, referred to in Section 7203, that makes a person liable for the tax and subject to the penalties imposed by Section 7203?"Hauert: "Yes, that's what I have been asking the prosecutor for. I have also been asking the IRS the same question for several years and no one will give me the Statute of law that I am accused of breaking."Note: In one sentence that would destroy the government's entire case,Judge: "No problem, Mr. Prosecutor, I'm sure that you can provide a copy of that statute."Prosecutor: (Stammering and stuttering) "Um, ohh.. I'm...uh.. not familiar with.. uh.. that part of the code." (With that, the Prosecutor lost his business like composure and the case was concluded. The prosecutor was ordered to find someone who knew which statute defined the offense.) Hauert's attorney then requested a Bill of Particulars, defining the specific offense statute that created the liability for Hauert to pay the income tax and file a 1040 Tax Return. A Bill of Particulars is a written statement of the SPECIFIC CHARGES against the defendant. This switched the burden of proof back to the government to provide such a statute. After an extended period of time, the prosecution still could not supply the court with the offense statute or regulation that made Tom Hauert (or any American Citizen) the person made liable to pay the S.1 graduated Income Tax
(because no such statute exists). Hauert, therefore, filed for and was granted a dismissal!PLEASE SEND TO ALL PATRIOTS YOU KNOW AND GET BACK TO ME IF THEY CAN GET THE TRANSCRIPT AND OR MORE INFORMATION. i NEEDED IT TO GET TO WALT WHO IS IN PRISON. haggai7@... Bob O'Brien
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.