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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Birth certificate [corrections]

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.