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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Birth certificate [corrections]

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Apr 2 4:20 PM
    • 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 2 of 8 , Apr 4 1:27 AM
      • 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 3 of 8 , Apr 8 9:44 PM
        • 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.