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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Birth certificate [corrections]

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Apr 1, 2008
      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

      > '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

      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

      > '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

      > 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.


    • 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 2 of 8 , Apr 2, 2008
        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

        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.


      • 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 3 of 8 , Apr 4, 2008
          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.


        • 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 4 of 8 , Apr 8, 2008
            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?


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