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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Birth certificate [corrections]

Expand Messages
  • Email41@aol.com
    ... ************** Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      am wondering if anyone on the forum has had any experience with dealing with hospital drones

      Let me deal first with your statement here. Entering a hospital and requesting medical care is an act of commerce. Health Care is the 3rd most regulated industry in the UNITED STATES. [Behind 1) Banking and 2) the Insurance Industry.] The Admissions form that is signed prior to receiving any evaluation or treatment imposes upon the contractee the obligation to conform to all the rules and regulations that are also imposed upon the hospital.

      By refusing to comply with the requirements of the SSA has placed upon the hospitals [who have accepted these regulations in exchange for better reimbursement rates on their Medicare claims] you are now in dishonor. This dishonor gives rise to the threats of Child Protective Services or local policing agencies intervention on behalf of the newborn's interest since you as the parent have failed in your fiduciary responsibilities. You may rewrite the hospital Admissions contract, but every hospital employee will presume that you have signed an unmodified contract and will act accordingly.

      You can avoid all of these complications by a home delivery without using any licensed health care providers. Health care providers are also required to report these activities in most states. [Exodus 1:15-22]

      Here is another health care plan available to those who would obey the commandments of the Creator Y'huah:

      1Timothy 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


      and refusing to have an SS# or birth certificate assigned to their child.

      From: Social Security Numbers For Children: SSA Publication No. 05-10023, December 2005, (Recycle prior editions), ICN 454925 found at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html.

      "Must my child have a Social Security number?

      No. Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. But, it is a good idea to get a number when your child is born. You can apply for a Social Security number for your baby when you apply for your baby’s birth certificate. The state agency that issues birth certificates will share your child’s information with us and we will mail the Social Security card to you. If you wait to apply at a Social Security office, you must show us proof of your child’s U.S. citizenship, age and identity, as well as proof of your own identity. We must verify your child’s birth record, which can add up to 12 weeks to the time it takes to issue a card. To verify a birth certificate, Social Security will contact the office that issued it. We do this verification to prevent people from using fraudulent birth records to obtain Social Security numbers to establish false identities."

      There use to be a process to revoke the SS5 application for the newborn; however, I'm unable to locate those instructions at the time of this email response. Perhaps others know where the instructions are. I remember that a mother must contact the SSA within 3 weeks of application to have it revoked.

      Should they desire to engage in a contractual relationship with the local health care facility perhaps a copy of the SSA publication should be in their possession. I'm am unaware of any strategy to avoid the berth cert. However they must understand that their child will not be allowed to engage in any public forms of commerce without a public identifier. Most people have not yet successfully returned to private forms of commerce that would completely support a family.


      Thanks,

      J






      **************
      Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
      (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
    • Frog Farmer
      I ve been following this thread but have been too busy to reply to the individual messages. Most of what I ve wanted to say has been covered by others since
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 31, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I've been following this thread but have been too busy to reply to the
        individual messages. Most of what I've wanted to say has been covered
        by others since the first message.

        Email41@... wrote:

        > Entering a hospital
        > and requesting medical care is an act of commerce.

        And surrender. You take it out of Jahuwah's hands and leave it to those
        who "practice" to get it right.

        > Health Care is the
        > 3rd most regulated industry in the UNITED STATES. [Behind 1) Banking
        > and 2) the Insurance Industry.] The Admissions form that is signed
        > prior to receiving any evaluation or treatment imposes upon the
        > contractee the obligation to conform to all the rules and regulations
        > that are also imposed upon the hospital.

        I remember two incidents: once lying on a gurney with a triple skull
        fracture, once with a broken back, while I read the contract and x'ed
        out several provisions to which I could not agree, with as much or more
        particularity than I do on these posts on this list. They didn't like
        it while I was doing it, just the thought of it bothered them. But they
        proceeded to go ahead with my changes.

        > You may rewrite the hospital Admissions
        > contract, but every hospital employee will presume that you have
        > signed an unmodified contract and will act accordingly.

        One should not be so shy that he fails to inform everyone of his special
        status as soon as possible. If he is struck speechless, a spokesperson
        could be employed, or perhaps email could be utilized for
        communications, any manner which communicates your one-in-a-million
        status to the minions on shift.

        On reading these posts on this thread, I see there is some
        misunderstanding of the ramifications of status and jurisdiction. It's
        as if some believe that the benefits of one can be automatically enjoyed
        by another. This is not the truth. One's lawful status has a lot to do
        with determining one's possibilities and disabilities, but if one is
        ignorant of their own status, one can make costly mistakes that have
        their effects in the legal record. If one is ignorant of the existence
        of jurisdictional boundaries (both physical and statutory) and how or
        when one crosses them, he or she will experience confusion when the
        harmful effects of ignorant action are first detected.

        Certain laws are made for certain persons.

        jjmozingo2002 wrote:

        > A friend of mine is expecting her new baby pretty soon.

        Is the father expecting it as well? Which style of rights is expected
        to hold in this relationship, the common law rights of family, or the
        new village style of socialism where the mother is already a ward of the
        state? I'm interested in who claims rights to the baby as of today. Is
        the father known?

        > She also does not want to apply for social security or birth
        > certificate. She has a notary friend who can notarize an affidavit of
        > birth for the child.

        Why decline to enter the subject jurisdiction and then volunteer into it
        by choosing to use a notary instead of the common law method of three
        witnesses? It looks to me that people do not understand jurisdiction
        too well.

        Mare Cad TITANIC wrote:

        > I do not know about everything else. BUT I do know that your
        > friend's baby(congrats by the way) she DOES need a SSN #. This
        > is for income tax purposes ie: deductions etc. Also for
        > inheritances, wills, powers of attorney etc. Hope this helps
        > & made sense.

        It doesn't make sense to me that only those willing to number themselves
        in a voluntary socialist scheme can have inheritance rights or use wills
        or transfer power of attorney. Maybe Mare can give us those long
        awaited statutes conferring tax liability.

        Richard Gieser wrote:

        > In 1986 his place of birth
        > was Pacific Hospital, Long Beach, California.
        > We were cash patients.

        In 1986 you could not have been cash patients. Cash was last in
        circulation in 1964. The difference between money (cash) and debt
        (private commercial paper) is a real one, but one not evidenced in the
        current propaganda vernacular.

        Virgil Cooper wrote:

        > I met with the
        > Arizona Registrar of Vital Records some years ago and he explained the
        > birth certification process. At that time, there were Birth and Death
        > Information Exchange Agreements with the federal government and
        > with the Canadian government. The Registrar of Vital Records stated
        > that the collection of birth and death information is all done under
        > the
        > Fourteenth Amendment. His actual statement was: "We perform a
        > genealogical function under the Fourteenth Amendment."

        This "amendment" was never ratified as a matter of law and so is only
        applicable to those who claim it rules over themselves. One case that
        shows it is Dyett v. Turner, for those who need court cases instead of
        plain words in constitutions.

        > As far as I
        > have ever known, "a genealogical function" pertains to family history
        > and is private in nature and NOT a proper governmental function.

        That's okay because you no longer have proper government to function.
        You never had a democracy, and the republic is missing vital parts and
        thus is no longer vitalized.

        > For
        > those who file income tax returns, they cannot claim a "deduction" for
        > each of their children without a Social Security Number for the child

        This must prove a nexus...those choosing to apply for socialist control
        over themselves must pay for the privilege. Application for privileges
        is strictly voluntary.

        > and for that they need to obtain an official state-issued Birth
        > Certificate.
        > The federal government and the state governments have made it very
        > difficult to live "outside of the system".

        Yes, psychological chains can be almost as real as metal ones, can't
        they? But propaganda and lies can be overcome, with effort and the will
        power. Has anyone recently been accused of exercising either one? I
        confess, I'm guilty of it!

        > The Birth Certificate will
        > become evidence (proof) of Fourteenth Amendment status that the
        > child is a "citizen of the United States" and a "resident" of the
        > state.

        Unrebutted proof, but anyone can rebut the impossible, so justice
        prevails in the end. Only those naturally suited for psychological
        slavery are self-compelled into applying their signature to their
        contract for subjection. Oh, sure, those with a vested financial
        interest will try to talk them into it, but that's all that can be done,
        talk.

        > See
        > Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also note that in Section 4,
        > "the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned" which means
        > that a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" lacks
        > standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act
        > or
        > to question the constitutionality of the bankers' fractional reserve
        > fiat
        > paper currency which we call "dollars"

        Who is this "we", Kemo Sabe? WHO told you and WHEN did they tell you,
        that FRNs were "dollars"? The Federal Reserve never told you that, and
        neither did anyone else, nor did any statute or provision you can show
        us directly. But a large number of people are willing to let you make
        that mistake yourself and will not correct you when you make that
        mistake. If you choose to stop making that mistake, life could be
        easier for you.

        > (they are pseudo "dollars") in
        > violation of Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution.

        They are?? For you maybe, but not for me, and many many others. For
        me, there is no such thing as pseudo dollars. Either we have a dollar
        or we do not. I have some. Don't you? A thing that is not a dollar is
        not a pseudo-dollar, anymore than a zuchinni is a pseudo-dollar. Both
        may take a dollar to obtain, that may be true. Both may "purchase" a
        dollar's worth of rice, that may also be true. Even criminally-printed
        counterfeit notes are not "pseudo-dollars". They are just counterfeit.

        > To state the
        > function of the Birth Certificate more succinctly, it functions as an
        > Inventory Control Number numbering the federal government 's
        > human assets and recipients of "privileges" and "entitlements" as well
        > as later as members of the work force as "economic units" (human
        > resources) earning income and paying taxes. Some people may miss the
        > significance of "residency". It is a privileged status and considered
        > also
        > to be an inherent commercial status meaning that a "resident" is
        > assumed to be engaged in taxable commercial activities wherever such
        > "person" resides.

        The above is so true! The unthinking masses must be dealt with, as they
        outnumber the thinking minority.
        <http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoE>

        If they choose to designate themselves as corporate automatons, is it
        any of my business that they unthinkingly waive many natural rights in
        return for corporate privileges that I cannot apply for without waiving
        rights valuable to me? Do they really expect to experience freedom
        after waiving their rights on such a grand scale? There is a very wide
        spectrum of human experience and understanding. Can there be humans
        less intelligent than cows? I don't know, but sometimes I suspect it.

        > You might want to visit your state capital and talk to the head of the
        > department of vital records to verify the details I have mentioned.

        I'm in California. That office is lawfully "vacant" but still populated
        with infiltrating impersonators collecting paychecks because they can do
        it unopposed. I certainly won't waste my time trying to stop them
        (unless of course they impinge upon my own life, liberty or pursuit of
        happiness.) For me, they're a source of continual entertainment. I'm
        personally unaffected by their actions because I know this. The
        knowledge alone allows one to act freely. One without the knowledge
        most likely reacts as a fish in a large school, and acts and changes
        direction based upon outside influences instead of upon rational
        thoughtful decision-making.

        > Before you do that, it would be a good idea to look up the statutory
        > requirements in your state relating to Birth Certificates. You will
        > see
        > how the "universal presumption of Fourteenth Amendment" is applied
        > to everyone without distinguishing State Citizens from "federal
        > citizens".

        No doubt.

        >"State Citizens" have been abolished, abrogated, done away
        > with, and no longer recognized. See Colegate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404
        > (1935).

        Cute. As if that was a citation of a case! A search of the case will
        not reveal any permutation of the words quoted above. And the unquoted
        words will not be found either. I read the whole case because I doubted
        what was said above could be true. It is not true. It is only true for
        those who classify themselves in the newly-created class that never was
        contemplated before.

        If I'm wrong, maybe a defender of that proposition could more carefully
        delineate the wording that leads them to the conclusion that "State
        Citizens" "no longer exist" or "have been abolished, abrogated, done way
        with, and no longer recognized"! I'll buy the "no longer recognized"
        but that's because they don't show up for recognition.

        > I hope this sheds some light on the meaning and ramifications of the
        > Birth Certificate.

        That case surely did not. It was about a tax case dealing with
        privileges surrounding usury claimed under an unratified constitutional
        amendment. The plaintiff was an automatic loser under the Ashwander
        Rules, objecting to a provision while at the same time trying to benefit
        from it, a definite Ashwander red flag. They were not claiming common
        law rights, but were depending upon the 14th amendment for their
        argument involving corporate commercial paper issued for profit. Back
        then, the 14th, like others, was believed lawfully ratified. Time and
        testimonies reveal frauds over time. I've been collecting them for
        decades. Our people have been as snowed by lies and liars as was the
        former Soviet Union. I recommend getting over it and moving on. But
        don't expect me to either act like I believe or give lip service to any
        of the many exposed lies that still have budgets for their cover-ups. I
        don't accept the 14th and haven't for over 30 years since I learned of
        its fraudulent properties. That's the beauty of America: people can
        believe any damn fool thing in which they desire to invest their
        credulity. And you have to let them, as long as they don't affect one's
        own rights in a negative manner. But as soon as their delusion affects
        one's rights, one has a right to self-defense.

        Regards,

        FF
      • Moisha Pippik
        ... The above post by FF supports my belief(without a proposition) that our beliefs create consent, which creates agreement, which leads to contract, which
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 31, 2008
        • 0 Attachment

          From FF:
          >That case surely did not. It was about a tax case dealing with
          >privileges surrounding usury claimed under an unratified constitutional
          >amendment. The plaintiff was an automatic loser under the Ashwander
          >Rules, objecting to a provision while at the same time trying to benefit
          >from it, a definite Ashwander red flag. They were not claiming common
          >law rights, but were depending upon the 14th amendment for their
          >argument involving corporate commercial paper issued for profit. Back
          >then, the 14th, like others, was believed lawfully ratified. Time and
          >testimonies reveal frauds over time. I've been collecting them for
          >decades. Our people have been as snowed by lies and liars as was the
          >former Soviet Union. I recommend getting over it and moving on. But
          >don't expect me
          to either act like I believe or give lip service to any
          >of the many exposed lies that still have budgets for their cover-ups. I
          >don't accept the 14th and haven't for over 30 years since I learned of
          >its fraudulent properties. That's the beauty of America: people can
          >believe any damn fool thing in which they desire to invest their
          >credulity. And you have to let them, as long as they don't affect one's
          >own rights in a negative manner. But as soon as their delusion affects
          >one's rights, one has a right to self-defense.

          The above post by FF supports my belief(without a proposition) that our beliefs create consent, which creates agreement, which leads to contract, which leads to possible and highly likely breach of contract, which leads to breach of trust, which leads to the highly probable penalty phase.
           
          Another interesting note is the definition from Black's Law 4th Deluxe, BELIEF. A conviction of the truth of a proposition, existing subjectively in the mind, and induced by argument, persuasion, or proof addressed to the judgement.
           
          Truth from a proposal?  Only in fiction can that happen.  Existing subjectively-are you a subject?  Induced by argument, which is what attorneys and other government employees are here to create(argument).  Induced by persuasion(that's the purported judges job), and proof to the judgement is supplies by us(the ones being presumed by the above to be subjects).
           
          Regards,
           
          Moisha


          No Cost - Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now. Sweet deal for Yahoo! users and friends.
        • Virgil Cooper
          More regarding the significance of the state-issued Birth Certificate: I deleted the upper portion of the thread and copied only the portion quoting me (Virgil
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            More regarding the significance of the state-issued Birth Certificate:

            I deleted the upper portion of the thread and copied only the portion quoting
            me (Virgil Cooper) and preserved Frog Farmer’s comments. I referenced the
            Colegate v. Harvey case because a few years ago in Phoenix a member of our
            Phoenix constitutional research group, Mike Huen, was prosecuted in U.S.
            District Court for seven years of “failure to file”. Judge Earl Carroll showed
            his bias by quoting extensively from Colegate v. Harvey. Mike Huen was the
            western regional operations manager for American Airlines. Mike had
            graduated from Northwestern University with a degree in accounting including
            CPA credentials. He had studied the Internal Revenue Code and could quote it
            from memory. Every time he tried to state or explain his state of mind (intent)
            the judge would pound his gavel and order the bailiff to remove the jury. That
            happened probably close to one hundred times in the course of the week long
            trial The judge then would warn Mike Huen that that kind of detail was “out of
            order” and “might confuse the jury” – and therefore he wouldn’t allow it to be
            heard by the jurors. Near the end of the trial, Judge Carroll told Mike Huen,
            “Mr. Huen, you are just plain wrong, mistaken. You are a citizen of the United
            States and you had gross income for the years in question. Gross income
            includes everything that comes in, all receipts.” The judge then quoted from
            the Colegate v. Harvey case, and to emphasize parts of it, he raised the volume
            of his voice and almost shouted into the microphone so the words rang in the
            courtroom. This is the section of the case that he emphasized by repeating to
            hammer the point (indicated in bold):

            “Thus, the dual character of our citizenship is made plainly apparent. That is to
            say, a citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of
            the state in which he resides. And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not
            create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship
            ‘paramount and dominant’ instead of ‘derivative and dependent’ upon state
            citizenship.” The judge then skipped the footnote and case cites, and
            continued: “Chief justice said, in the Selective Draft Law Cases, “We have
            hitherto considered it as it has been argued from the point of view of the
            Constitution as it stood prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
            But to avoid all misapprehension we briefly direct attention to that (the
            fourteenth) amendment for the purpose of pointing out, as has been frequently
            done in the past, how completely it broadened the national scope of the
            government under the Constitution by causing citizenship of the United States
            to be paramount and dominant instead of being subordinate and derivative,
            and therefore operating as it does upon all the powers conferred by the
            Constitution leaves no possible support for the contentions made if their want
            of merit was otherwise not to [too] clearly made manifest.”

            Judge Carroll continued his “rant” by stating that the Fourteenth Amendment
            applies to all Americans as does the Sixteenth Amendment. For emphasis he
            stated that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified as was the Sixteenth
            Amendment and as a result of those ratifications became a part of the United
            States Constitution applicable to all Americans. This quotation occurred
            shortly before both sides rested and the judge then gave his instructions to the
            jury of eight women and four men. That occurred at the end of the next to the
            last day. The next morning the jury began its deliberations. They sent a note to
            the judge asking to see the Internal Revenue Code, or at least some of the
            sections mentioned by the defendant prior to each time the judge gaveled him
            down and ordered the jury removed. The jury’s request was denied, but the
            judge sent the jury a clarifying note explaining why they didn’t need to see
            specific code provisions. Four hours later, at noon, the jury delivered its
            verdict: guilty on four of the seven counts of “failure to file” and one count of
            “defeating the collection of the income tax.” (I may have this “one count”
            worded wrong.) Afterward, the jurors met with Mike and his wife and two
            teenage children in the hall outside the elevators and the women tearfully
            apologized for having to convict him. The said the way the instructions were
            worded that they had no alternative but to convict. Likewise, the men on jury
            said they were sorry and wished him well. The judge gave Mike Huen 30 days
            to wrap up his affairs and report for sentencing. A month later, the judge
            sentenced him to two and one-half years in minimum security federal prison
            and told him to report to Nellis Air Force Base outside of Las Vegas, Nevada.

            I sat through much of the case. Mike Huen was prevented from presenting his
            “state of mind” or intent, a key element of the case. I also felt that the fact that
            American Airlines is a federally chartered airline was a factor though never
            openly discussed in the courtroom. He was a corporate officer and employee –
            western regional operations manager – of a federally chartered airline, which
            would be considered a “quasi public corporation” by virtue of a federally
            conferred franchise.

            In order to give a little more “context” to the disabilities inherent in Fourteenth
            Amendment “status”, bogus as that is, from a pragmatic viewpoint, the masses
            have acquiesced to “slavery status” and represent probably 99-plus percent.
            The minority to which Frog Farmer refers is an extreme minority, probably
            less than one percent.






            Frog Farmer wrote: I've been following this thread but have been too busy
            to reply to the
            individual messages. Most of what I've wanted to say has been covered by
            others since the first message. Frog Farmer’s interspersed comments are
            indicated by bracketed [FF].


            Virgil Cooper wrote:

            I met with the Arizona Registrar of Vital Records some years ago and he
            explained the birth certification process. At that time, there were Birth
            and Death Information Exchange Agreements with the federal government and
            with the Canadian government. The Registrar of Vital Records stated that
            the collection of birth and death information is all done under the
            Fourteenth Amendment. His actual statement was: "We perform a genealogical
            function under the Fourteenth Amendment."

            [FF]: This "amendment" was never ratified as a matter of law and so is only
            applicable to those who claim it rules over themselves. One case that shows
            it is Dyett v. Turner, for those who need court cases instead of plain words
            in constitutions.

            As far as I have ever known, "a genealogical function" pertains to family
            history and is private in nature and NOT a proper governmental function.

            [FF]: That's okay because you no longer have proper government to function.
            You never had a democracy, and the republic is missing vital parts and thus
            is no longer vitalized.

            For those who file income tax returns, they cannot claim a "deduction" for
            each of their children without a Social Security Number for the child

            [FF]: This must prove a nexus...those choosing to apply for socialist
            control over themselves must pay for the privilege. Application for
            privileges is strictly voluntary.

            and for that they need to obtain an official state-issued Birth Certificate.
            The federal government and the state governments have made it very difficult
            to live "outside of the system".

            [FF]: Yes, psychological chains can be almost as real as metal ones, can't
            they? But propaganda and lies can be overcome, with effort and the will
            power. Has anyone recently been accused of exercising either one? I
            confess, I'm guilty of it!

            The Birth Certificate will become evidence (proof) of Fourteenth Amendment
            status that the
            child is a "citizen of the United States" and a "resident" of the state.

            [FF]: Unrebutted proof, but anyone can rebut the impossible, so justice
            prevails in the end. Only those naturally suited for psychological slavery
            are self-compelled into applying their signature to their contract for
            subjection. Oh, sure, those with a vested financial interest will try to
            talk them into it, but that's all that can be done, talk.

            See Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also note that in Section 4,
            "the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned" which means that a
            Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" lacks standing to
            challenge the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act
            or to question the constitutionality of the bankers' fractional reserve fiat
            paper currency which we call "dollars"

            [FF]: Who is this "we", Kemo Sabe? WHO told you and WHEN did they tell
            you, that FRNs were "dollars"? The Federal Reserve never told you that, and
            neither did anyone else, nor did any statute or provision you can show us
            directly. But a large number of people are willing to let you make that
            mistake yourself and will not correct you when you make that mistake. If
            you choose to stop making that mistake, life could be easier for you.

            (they are pseudo "dollars") in violation of Article I, Section 10, of the
            U.S. Constitution.

            [FF]: They are?? For you maybe, but not for me, and many, many others.
            For me, there is no such thing as pseudo dollars. Either we have a dollar
            or we do not. I have some. Don't you? A thing that is not a dollar is not
            a pseudo-dollar, anymore than a zuchinni is a pseudo-dollar. Both may take
            a dollar to obtain, that may be true. Both may "purchase" a dollar's worth
            of rice, that may also be true. Even criminally-printed counterfeit notes
            are not "pseudo-dollars". They are just counterfeit.

            To state the function of the Birth Certificate more succinctly, it functions
            as an Inventory Control Number numbering the federal government 's human
            assets and recipients of "privileges" and "entitlements" as well as later as
            members of the work force as "economic units" (human
            resources) earning income and paying taxes. Some people may miss the
            significance of "residency". It is a privileged status and considered also
            to be an inherent commercial status meaning that a "resident" is assumed to
            be engaged in taxable commercial activities wherever such
            "person" resides.

            [FF]: The above is so true! The unthinking masses must be dealt with, as
            they outnumber the thinking minority.
            < http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoE
            <http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoE> >

            [FF}: If they choose to designate themselves as corporate automatons, is it
            any of my business that they unthinkingly waive many natural rights in
            return for corporate privileges that I cannot apply for without waiving
            rights valuable to me? Do they really expect to experience freedom
            after waiving their rights on such a grand scale? There is a very wide
            spectrum of human experience and understanding. Can there be humans less
            intelligent than cows? I don't know, but sometimes I suspect it.

            You might want to visit your state capital and talk to the head of the
            department of vital records to verify the details I have mentioned.

            [FF]: I'm in California. That office is lawfully "vacant" but still
            populated with infiltrating impersonators collecting paychecks because they
            can do it unopposed. I certainly won't waste my time trying to stop them
            (unless of course they impinge upon my own life, liberty or pursuit of
            happiness.) For me, they're a source of continual entertainment. I'm
            personally unaffected by their actions because I know this. The knowledge
            alone allows one to act freely. One without the knowledge most likely
            reacts as a fish in a large school, and acts and changes direction based
            upon outside influences instead of upon rational thoughtful decision-making.

            Before you do that, it would be a good idea to look up the statutory
            requirements in your state relating to Birth Certificates. You will see how
            the "universal presumption of Fourteenth Amendment" is applied to everyone
            without distinguishing State Citizens from "federal
            citizens".

            [FF}: No doubt.

            "State Citizens" have been abolished, abrogated, done away with, and no
            longer recognized. See Colegate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935).

            [FF]: Cute. As if that was a citation of a case! A search of the case
            will not reveal any permutation of the words quoted above. And the unquoted
            words will not be found either. I read the whole case because I doubted
            what was said above could be true. It is not true. It is only true for
            those who classify themselves in the newly-created class that never was
            contemplated before.

            [FF}: If I'm wrong, maybe a defender of that proposition could more
            carefully delineate the wording that leads them to the conclusion that
            "Staten Citizens" "no longer exist" or "have been abolished, abrogated, done
            way with, and no longer recognized"! I'll buy the "no longer recognized"
            but that's because they don't show up for recognition.

            I hope this sheds some light on the meaning and ramifications of the Birth
            Certificate.

            [FF]: That case surely did not. It was about a tax case dealing with
            privileges surrounding usury claimed under an unratified constitutional
            amendment. The plaintiff was an automatic loser under the Ashwander Rules,
            objecting to a provision while at the same time trying to benefit from it, a
            definite Ashwander red flag. They were not claiming common law rights, but
            were depending upon the 14th amendment for their argument involving
            corporate commercial paper issued for profit. Back then, the 14th, like
            others, was believed lawfully ratified. Time and testimonies reveal frauds
            over time. I've been collecting them for decades. Our people have been as
            snowed by lies and liars as was the former Soviet Union. I recommend
            getting over it and moving on. But
            don't expect me to either act like I believe or give lip service to any of
            the many exposed lies that still have budgets for their cover-ups. I don't
            accept the 14th and haven't for over 30 years since I learned of its
            fraudulent properties. That's the beauty of America: people can believe any
            damn fool thing in which they desire to invest their credulity. And you
            have to let them, as long as they don't affect one's own rights in a
            negative manner. But as soon as their delusion affects one's rights, one
            has a right to self-defense.

            Regards,

            FF
            For clarification, I’ll append a response I sent recently regarding the
            Fourteenth Amendment. Much of the “prevalence” of the 14th can be
            attributed to FDR and the New Deal administration during the Depression
            years and World War II, which actively pursued a new interpretation of the
            U.S. Constitution known as the “living document interpretation”. On a later
            post I will give some excerpts from the latest issue of Hillsdale College’s
            IMPRIMIS publication on the abandonment of natural law and natural rights in
            the aftermath of the 14th and how that “conversion” totally changed the
            character of the laws and the people’s relationship to government. The
            response below was copied and has formatting problems. The paragraphs
            originally were single spaced to conserve space, but now they appear double
            spaced and cannot be compressed. The information below was gleaned from
            various Southern law review articles and not from “official” U.S. government
            publications or sources. I was not taught this in high school civics or in
            college history courses.
            Virgil Cooper, Vernon, Arizona

            Hello from the White Mountains of Arizona,

            I have been a member of (another) list for only about six months. Mostly, I
            read the posts and seldom jump in with comments. However, the Fourteenth
            Amendment is an area I have spent much time reading into the history and
            legal cases associated with this war (Civil War) amendment. The Fourteenth
            Amendment is far more sinister than most people realize or have the necessary
            background to appreciate. Historically speaking, the genesis of the amendment
            arose out of D.C. municipal law – the Freedman’ s Bureau of the federal
            government. From that municipal law, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of
            1866. Then in an effort to “constitutionalize” that legislation, Congress
            proposed the Civil Rights Act in modified form as the Fourteenth
            Amendment. It started out as municipal law (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17),
            then as the Civil Rights Act of 1866 it continued to be D.C. municipal law
            (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17). Incorporating the Civil Rights Act of 1866 into the U.S.
            Constitution as the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the fact that it
            originated as a municipal law of Congress and remains a municipal law of
            Congress to the present. The southern states refused to ratify it, so, in
            retaliation, Congress sent a trainload of armed U.S. Marshals to Tennessee.
            When they arrived in Memphis, they proceeded to search the bars and saloons
            and rounded up a “quorum” of Tennessee legislators, arrested them, marched
            them in manacles and leg irons to the statehouse. There they found each
            legislator’s desk and nameplate, ordered them to take their seat, thrust a
            fountain pen into their hands, put the muzzle of a loaded pistol to their
            temples, cocked back the hammer and said, “Sign it.” That’s how the
            Fourteenth Amendment was “ratified” in Tennessee. The word of what
            happened went out over telegraph wires to the ten other southern states.
            Congress realized that they wouldn’t be able to pull that “hijacking stunt”
            again with any of the remaining ten southern states. Congress then kicked the
            duly elected senators and representatives out of Congress and declared their
            seats vacated and then canceled “statehood” of the remaining ten southern
            states, canceled their state constitutions, and declared each “former state area”
            a military district to be administered under marshal law. Meantime, three
            northern states, reconsidered their acts of ratification and rescinded their
            ratifications. They were Maryland, Delaware, and Ohio. Congress refused to
            recognize the “de-ratifications” of the three northern states. In the ten southern
            states that were placed under military rule thereby invoking martial law,
            military commanders descended on the capitols of each of the “former states”
            and rounded up totally unelected and unqualified Blacks off the streets. They
            asked Black men if they could write their name. If the answer was, “Yaza,
            yaza, Massa. Ah kin sine ma name.” They then declared the Black men
            selected in this manner, “You are a leg-gis-lay-tor.” These Blacks were called
            “scalawags” or “scallywags” by the southern Whites – meaning they were
            unelected and unqualified to be legislators. It was these totally unqualified and
            unelected Blacks who then signed ratification papers supposedly “ratifying”
            the Fourteenth Amendment in those ten “rebellious” southern States. All
            eleven southern States “ratified” the Fourteenth Amendment under conditions
            of coercion and duress – and outright fraud.

            The Fourteenth Amendment was not applied against the States until the 1930s.
            But, there is more to the story than mere “application” of the Fourteenth
            Amendment against the States. The progression of federal power was
            involved. The approximately 3.5 million Blacks in BOTH the South and the
            North were placed under federal protection and granted “federal citizenship”.
            Wherever they traveled among the several States, these “federal citizens”
            carried federal jurisdiction and federal protection. The actual progression was
            thus: first the Blacks, then the 200,000 Chinese coolies (slaves) imported from
            China to build the transcontinental railroad. These were added to the
            Fourteenth Amendment and placed under federal protection. Then the treaties
            with Spain and Mexico followed. Hispanics in the western areas were brought
            into or placed under the Fourteenth Amendment. A BIG PROBLEM still
            loomed. There were TWO CLASSES of citizens: State Citizens (also called
            Preamble Citizens having UNALIENABLE Rights and able to invoke the
            Common Law) and “United States citizens” or “federal citizens” who only had
            statutory privileges called “rights” or “civil rights”. This “differentiation
            problem” was solved in the 1920s and 1930s. It was partly solved in 1913 with
            the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act. (The
            Seventeenth Amendment stripped the States of direct representation in
            Congress). Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1932. One of his first
            acts was passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1932. Federal subsidies
            were offered to ranchers and farmers nationwide. Huge numbers signed up.
            Then in 1935 the Social Security Act was passed and offered to the American
            public. By August 1938, more than 90 percent of adult Americans had signed
            up to participate in this federal program. The Fourteenth Amendment then was
            applied against the several States. FDR issued an Executive Order “ordering”
            the U.S. Supreme Court to re-write the Rules of Court. This was done.
            Common Law was declared “abrogated” and Equity jurisdiction replaced the
            Common Law. In other words, Equity conquered or vanquished Common
            Law. During the 1930s, ALL Americans were “absorbed” or “incorporated”
            into the Fourteenth Amendment. The American people have acquiesced to and
            complied with the encroachment of federal power, of the extension of federal
            jurisdiction. The States no longer recognize State Citizens or “naturalize” their
            own citizens. The federal government handles ALL naturalization and does so
            under the Fourteenth Amendment. The several States united have been
            reduced to vassal states, mere administrative subdivisions of the federal
            government. Ask any attorney or judge and you will be told that nowadays the
            Fourteenth Amendment is “a universally applied presumption in the law.” It
            just is. Accept it. Live with it. If you argue “Original State Citizenship” or
            “Preamble Citizenship”, expect to be ridiculed as trying to “fight the Civil War
            all over again” and “that question was settled by the Civil War.” The
            Fourteenth Amendment may be a “universally applied presumption”, but it is a
            REBUTTABLE presumption.

            An authority verifying this is: “Government by Judiciary: The Transformation
            of the Fourteenth Amendment,” by the late Harvard Law Professor Raoul
            Berger (1997). [I hope Bear will allow this reference to go through.] Another
            concise summary of the essential elements of the Fourteenth Amendment can
            be found at a Web site: Original Intent, maintained by Dave Champion,
            www.originalintent.org <http://www.originalintent.org/> . Click on the
            “Education” button and read his treatise on the 14th, “Fourteenth Amendment
            Clarified.” Driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, birth certificates, and all kinds
            of other “privileges” come under the Fourteenth Amendment. Don’t let
            anyone try to convince you that there is “nothing wrong” with the Fourteenth
            Amendment. They LIE. Or they suffer from abject ignorance and naiveté.
            Everyone who registers to vote in the national elections is required to admit
            that they are a “citizen of the United States.” It is a Fourteenth Amendment
            privilege to vote directly for the president and vice president and senator.
            That’s what the Electoral College was set up for – to select the president and
            vice president. The States were supposed to maintain direct representation in
            Congress by selecting their own Senators.

            The “system” has made it nearly or virtually impossible to re-establish one’ s
            status as a State Citizen. It is discouraged. Expect to be told such status is no
            longer recognized, like “common law marriage” – it, too, is no longer
            recognized. The federal income tax is imposed on the privileged status of
            federal citizens “residing” in the “United States”. The “United States” referred
            to is either the federal government’s territorial jurisdiction (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl.
            2) or the federal government’s municipal jurisdiction (I-8-17). It is a fact that
            98-to-99 percent of Americans living in the several States and working in the
            private sector and earing their own money DO NOT OWE any Sixteenth
            Amendment income tax – neither Subtitle A (income tax) nor Subtitle C
            (payroll tax). They commit perjury by “confessing” that they are federal
            employees subject to the tax and signing “under penalty of perjury” that they
            are a taxpayer and owe the tax.

            So, don’t let anyone try to convince you that being brought under the
            “umbrella” of the Fourteenth Amendment somehow is “okay” and “no big
            deal”. They KEY operative phrase in Section 1 of the 14th is “subject to the
            jurisdiction thereof (of the United States).” “Subject to” refers to inferior
            subjects, underlings, subordinate persons – actually creatures of Congress.
            The TRICK is that by eliminating State Citizens (also called Preamble Citizens)
            and no longer recognizing original Citizens, competition is eliminated, and the
            inferior “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is no
            longer “second class” but the ONLY type of citizenship recognized. Original
            State “Citizens” are treated as being EXTINCT – ABOLISHED – a mere
            historical relic of the pre-Civil War agrarian society. Read the Treaty of Paris
            (1783). Sovereignty passed to the People of newly formed Thirteen United
            States. Sovereignty DOES NOT vest with or in the federal government’s
            Fourteenth Amendment “federal subjects”.

            In effect, historically speaking, ownership of the slaves passed from the
            Master (the slave holder) to Congress, and Congress became the new Master.
            In the aftermath of the Civil War and with the “freeing” of the slaves, hoards
            of slaves in the South were scavenging the countryside for food trying to stay
            alive. Congress sent word to the Southern slaves that they could come to
            Washington, D.C. (then called the City of Washington or Washington City)
            and Congress (“Uncle Sam”) would take care of them. Within six months of
            that announcement, more than 500,000 Blacks moved into Washington, D.C.
            Washington, D.C. has been predominantly black ever since. Fourteenth
            Amendment “federal citizenship” is a federal jurisdictional status, a class of
            citizenship, and inferior in all respects. It is an innocuous “cage”, a virtual
            cage, and more of a trap or snare for the unwary and incautious than an
            umbrella.

            Best regards from Virgil
          • Frog Farmer
            ... I wonder if his papers were in order. ... Someone should have asked if he was testifying or just demonstrating prejudice. ... I forget the exact citation,
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Virgil Cooper wrote:

              > Judge Earl Carroll showed
              > his bias by quoting extensively from Colegate v. Harvey.

              I wonder if his papers were in order.

              > Near the end of the trial, Judge Carroll told
              > Mike Huen, "Mr. Huen, you are just plain wrong,
              > mistaken. You are a citizen of
              > the United States and you had gross income for
              > the years in question.

              Someone should have asked if he was testifying or just demonstrating
              prejudice.

              > 'Gross income includes everything that comes in, all
              > receipts."

              I forget the exact citation, but there is at least one case saying that
              income is NOT "all that comes in". (Comes in to where or what?? Your
              alimentary canal?? Most likely, "comes in" to a federally chartered
              banking account with a signature card full of waivers...)

              > The judge then quoted from the Colegate v. Harvey case,
              > and to emphasize parts of it, he raised the volume
              > of his voice and almost shouted into the microphone so
              > the words rang in the courtroom. This is the section of
              > the case that he emphasized by repeating to
              > hammer the point (indicated in bold):
              >
              > "Thus, the dual character of our citizenship is made plainly
              apparent."

              Was it plainly apparent who was speaking those words? Maybe what is
              true for one is not necessarily true for another. "Our"?? Was someone
              else a there a federal employee as well as the judge?

              > "That is to say, a citizen of the United States is
              > ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of
              > the state in which he resides. And while the Fourteenth Amendment does
              > not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that
              > citizenship..."

              The "national" one it does not create? No, the limited one it does
              create...!

              > 'paramount and dominant' instead of 'derivative and dependent' upon
              > state citizenship."

              Paramount and dominant in D.C., paramount and dominant with all those
              dependent upon it for their daily bread. But it did not automatically
              change the status of any living state citizen at the time, nor their
              progeny, nor any "natural born".

              > "Chief justice said, in the Selective Draft Law Cases,
              > "We have hitherto considered it as it has been argued
              > from the point of view of the Constitution as it stood
              > prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

              And since this judge relied upon others to truthfully report the
              ratification assumed to comply with the constitution, and since he was
              lied to, and since now we know better, I will hitherto force them to
              consider it from the point of view of the Constitution as it stood prior
              to the falsified adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

              > "But to avoid all misapprehension we briefly direct attention
              > to that (the fourteenth) amendment for the purpose of pointing
              > out, as has been frequently done in the past, how completely it
              > broadened the national scope of the government under the
              > Constitution by causing citizenship of the United States
              > to be paramount and dominant instead of being subordinate and
              > derivative, and therefore operating as it does upon all
              > the powers conferred by the Constitution leaves no possible
              > support for the contentions made if their want
              > of merit was otherwise not to [too] clearly made manifest."

              It "broadened the scope" as much as a cattle rancher would have a
              broadened scope by taking on raising sheep as well. It doesn't make his
              cattle into sheep, or his sheep into cattle. It just gives him a
              broader scope of ranching duties. He calls them one name: "4-legged
              manure-makers" and treats them accordingly. They all admit the
              classification.

              > Judge Carroll continued his "rant" by stating that the Fourteenth
              > Amendment applies to all Americans as does the Sixteenth Amendment.

              I recently had to defend my rights in an administrative level. I like
              to win without fighting, but you have to be ready to go all the way
              anytime you take on a monster. I prefer the old "blow pepper up his
              nose" ploy. I prefer no fight, but a clear statement of my win. You
              all know I believe the best moment for this is the initial one, before
              anyone else has their act together. I'd have to agree with the judge
              here: the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all Americans exactly as the
              Sixteenth Amendment does, and the 17th. Not one bit more; not one bit
              less. None of them applies to me.

              > For emphasis he
              > stated that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified as was the Sixteenth
              > Amendment and as a result of those ratifications became a part of the
              > United States Constitution applicable to all Americans.

              Chileans are Americans. Bolivians are Americans. Few "judges" are
              really "judges" anymore! (Check their documents).

              > I also felt that the fact that American Airlines is a
              > federally chartered airline was a factor though
              > never openly discussed in the courtroom.

              The obvious never needs to be discussed, does it?

              > He was a corporate officer and employee -
              > western regional operations manager - of a federally
              > chartered airline, which would be considered a
              > "quasi public corporation" by virtue of a federally
              > conferred franchise.

              Maybe he didn't understand jurisdiction issues.

              > In order to give a little more "context" to the
              > disabilities inherent in Fourteenth Amendment "status"
              > bogus as that is, from a pragmatic viewpoint, the
              > masses have acquiesced to "slavery status" and represent
              > probably 99-plus percent.
              > The minority to which Frog Farmer refers is an extreme
              > minority, probably less than one percent.

              In my recent administrative foray, I was told that I was
              "one-in-a-million" and it was cheaper to deal with people like me in the
              way they did rather than instruct all their employees that there could
              be a one-in-a-million-exception to the rules as they "knew them". This
              required ME to do all the homework and basically take charge and tell
              them how it was going to work out, using the laws they admitted they
              would have to follow. They don't mind going through gates if you'll open
              them for them. You may have to instruct them on how to give you your
              rights and still save their bureaucratic faces.

              I get a kick out of the way they end up saying it's my "opinion" when I
              can articulate my own arguments but they cannot articulate theirs.

              Regards,

              FF
            • Frog Farmer
              ... This is from the 31 Questions posed by Paul Andrew Mitchell: 11. Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen? Answer: Yes. The 1866
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 2, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Frog Farmer wrote:

                > If I'm wrong, maybe a defender of that proposition could more
                > carefully delineate the wording that leads them to the
                > conclusion that "State Citizens" "no longer exist" or "have
                > been abolished, abrogated, done away with, and are no longer
                > recognized"!

                This is from the 31 Questions posed by Paul Andrew Mitchell:

                "11. Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?

                Answer: Yes. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to
                the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the
                "state" government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These
                areas are now identified as "the federal zone." (Think of it as the
                blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the 50
                States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever
                upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.

                Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens
                without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent examples, see
                State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board
                of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). The Maine Supreme
                Court also clarified the issue by explaining our "Right of Election" or
                "freedom of choice," namely, our freedom to choose between two different
                forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.

                Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to
                guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress
                is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has.
                In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380
                (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative
                democracy.

                But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any
                allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or
                more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the
                American flag, not the blue field)."

                I hope this helps. But take note: I believe the required of elements of
                a republic have been permitted to lapse and therefore no republic
                exists, therefore no authority other than military brute force exists.

                Regards,

                FF
              • Frog Farmer
                ... I see only black and white. ... Makes sense to me. ... Makes sense too. ... When I went fishing for halibut, they called that a charter as well. ... Nope.
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 4, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Epost wrote:

                  > I have good factual evidence to believe that a shell game as been
                  > played upon the American People, if you really look at the facts of
                  > Corporate Organizational structure today you will find that the courts
                  > are in on the game. Sure you can play the roll of a State Citizen, but
                  > that looks as if it puts you right back in the Federal Zone again.
                  > Brace yourself, this is going to be a hard nut to swallow;
                  >
                  > See comments in Blue below:

                  I see only black and white.

                  > In the states statutes and especially North Carolina the definition
                  > for a Citizen is a member of the "Corporate Body Politic".

                  Makes sense to me.

                  > You can do a search on http://www.manta.com/ for the State of North
                  > Carolina, the date of becoming a Private Incorporation as a Federal
                  > Entity is the year 1789, their Organic Constitution was drafted and
                  > approved in 1787 which also is an interesting year I will tell you
                  > about later. This evidence here would make one self to believe that
                  > their Constitution was written as the Charter for the Corporation
                  > unless you have evidence to prove otherwise.

                  Makes sense too.

                  > Also all of the old land
                  > propriety Surveys in the 1600s were called Charters... coincidence?
                  > maybe not.

                  When I went fishing for halibut, they called that a charter as well.

                  > Please show evidence that I am wrong here if you can find it.

                  Nope. But so far nothing you've said changes any of my own plans.

                  > But on the other hand the Several 50 states were
                  > brought into the Federal Zone by Proxy referring to my other comments.

                  I'm pretty much through the fighting, so I'm not quoting any cases right
                  now, and not taking time to find one for you (someone else will provide
                  it no doubt) BUT recent cases have stated that certain areas that lie
                  inside states lie outside the federal zone (Lopez??). I can understand
                  how anyone can bring the federal zone onto himself anywhere he wishes to
                  waive rights and permit it. I decline the offer.

                  > 1787 was a big year, George Washington was elected, the U.S.
                  > Incorporated
                  > and the next year the U.S. Constitution was signed.
                  > (Sources: manta.com, at the site search for Executive Offices of the
                  > United States hence.. "Executive orders", also see 28 USC 3002[15].)

                  Uh-huh, so...?

                  > It is quite interesting here to point out that I have spoken to
                  > several Military
                  > Personnel and they all have said the Military Codes Manual clearly
                  > states
                  > that Horizontal Stripes means "being at War" and Vertical means
                  > " at Peace " . Search back in history to see how long the U.S. Flag
                  > stripes
                  > have been Horizontal and then read through the Military Commissions
                  > Act(Can be found by Googling it) specifically where it mentions
                  > "Militarized Zones", soon you will be able to put the pieces of the
                  > puzzle together.

                  Thanks, but I already use the Lieber Code (General Order 100) in my own
                  relations with the Provost Marshal. We all know we're in a free fire
                  zone around here. Did anyone see the news tonight about Route 80 West
                  being closed near Richmond, California because of a shooting on the
                  freeway? After I was attacked and presumed dead the local military
                  advised me on weapons procuration and deployment, and didn't interfere
                  with my exercise of rights in the least. They do not view me as a
                  threat, but do realize that I am responsible for myself. Recently, as
                  I've reported, I relieved them of all civil duties by disqualifying them
                  from any civil offices. I do not try to arrest local warlords or gang
                  leaders. I instead let it be known that I tolerate no trouble from
                  anyone and seek peace with all.

                  > therefore no authority other than [military brute force exists.]

                  Yeah, that's what I said. 9mm., .22, .223, 12 gauge. Dogs. Laser
                  sights. Bow and arrows. Airguns. Knives, machetes, mantraps.
                  Strategically located propane bottles. I'm covered and going nowhere.


                  The frogs are out of hibernation.

                  Regards,

                  FF
                • Frog Farmer
                  ... They?? How were they applied, and by whom? I doubt Afghanis would know about it. I intend to refer to maybe two provisions. ... When I find myself
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 8, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Pingmyemail wrote:

                    > > I have not used the Lieber Code as of yet due to the images of
                    > > Guantanamo Bay recently, not sure they worked so great there.

                    They?? How were "they" applied, and by whom? I doubt Afghanis would
                    know about it. I intend to refer to maybe two provisions.

                    > > What about the abusing officers not caught on camera.
                    > > Have been unsuccessful so far at identifying a local Provost
                    > > Marshall, can you please elaborate on how to do that?

                    When I find myself sitting in a cell, that will be my first phone call.
                    When asked who is my counsel, I will ask to see the Provost Marshall.
                    Aren't THEY required to know who it is and the number??!!

                    Or are things as I supposed, just going through the motions for the
                    weekly paycheck?

                    Regards,

                    FF
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.