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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letters from government making demands

Expand Messages
  • enilak666@yahoo.com
    There was a recent article on the Net that talked about the 14th Amendment and how the freed slaves were not given the same rights as white people. Since the
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 17, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      There was a recent article on the Net that talked about the 14th Amendment and how the freed slaves were not given the same rights as white people. Since the Constitution forbade blacks from ever having the same citizenship as white people, they were given "privileges" instead. The article went on to say while they could enter contracts, own property, etc., they were not given all political rights such as voting. That would come later, over time as the blacks became more educated and were better able to understand the issues being voted on. There are also court decisions on the Web that clearly state US citizens have less access to constitutional protections than do original white Citizens. As a creation of congress, residents who are subjects of congress, do not share the same rights as state citizens. The naturalized US citizen was not in a favorable position as were the white people mentioned in the Constitution, according to this article. The entire subject of one's political status could bear some investigation, I believe.
       
      Bill 

      --- On Fri, 10/16/09, Greg Knapp <gknapp@...> wrote:

      From: Greg Knapp <gknapp@...>
      Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letters from government making demands
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, October 16, 2009, 7:50 PM

       

      BTW, isn't that the section that proves that 14th Amendment citizens (freed slaves) have the same rights as the original class of (state) citizens?

       



      State to the bank that your due process rights are being
      violated, and if the bank and manager, now informed by
      you, chooses to knowingly andwillingly comply with the IRS
      against your expressed demands, the bank and manager can be
      subject to a federal suit per 42 USC 1983, deprivation of rights….

      __


    • jerry bell
      Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 17, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee from military occupation, and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no senator or congressman from the occupied states could be seated in Congress until a new constitution was adopted by each state which would be approved by Congress, and further provided that each of the 10 states must ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the states be allowed to have seats in Congress.
         
        By the time the Reconstruction Act had been declared to be the law, three more states had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and two -- Louisiana and Delaware -- had rejected it.
         
        Then Maryland withdrew its prior ratification and rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio followed suit and withdrew its prior ratification, as also did New Jersey. California, which earlier had voted not to pass upon the proposal, now voted to reject the amendment. Thus 16 of the 37 states had rejected the proposed amendment.
        By spurious, non-representative governments seven of the southern states which had theretofore rejected the proposed amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State on July 20, 1868, issued his proclamation wherein he stated that it was his duty under the law to cause amendments to be published, and certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official notice that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution.
         
        So was the 14 amendment forced upon us by military power?


        There was a recent article on the Net that talked about the 14th Amendment and how the freed slaves were not given the same rights as white people. Since the Constitution forbade blacks from ever having the same citizenship as white people, they were given "privileges" instead. The article went on to say while they could enter contracts, own property, etc., they were not given all political rights such as voting. That would come later, over time as the blacks became more educated and were better able to understand the issues being voted on.
      • Jim Stiner
        The 14th amd was not forced on us, it was forced on those people who embraced the idea of wanting to be citizens. Citizenship was sold to the gullible public
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 17, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          The 14th amd was not forced on us, it was forced on those people who
          embraced the idea of wanting to be citizens.



          Citizenship was sold to the gullible public as a benefit.



          But in order for you to embrace it, you must be born in the United States,
          which is an impossibility, and you must agree to be subject to their
          jurisdiction.



          You cannot be born in an artificial entity. You were born on the land, but
          not the U.S., and what action did you take to make yourself subject to?



          If you came here from a foreign country, you pledged to be a citizen and
          renounced your previous citizenship, but not so with inhabitants.



          Jim



          _____


          Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully
          for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth
          Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the
          military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee
        • hobot
          ... Those are the harsh facts to be found in public record, which narrows down who can qualify for as dejure State Citizenship or Freeman. May upset some folks
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 17, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            enilak666@... wrote:
            > There was a recent article on the Net that talked about the 14th Amendment and how the freed slaves were not given the same rights as white people. Since the Constitution forbade blacks from ever having the same citizenship as white people, they were given "privileges" instead. The article went on to say while they could enter contracts, own property, etc., they were not given all political rights such as voting. That would come later, over time as the blacks became more educated and were better able to understand the issues being voted on. There are also court decisions on the Web that clearly state US citizens have less access to constitutional protections than do original white Citizens. As a creation of congress, residents who are subjects of congress, do not share the same rights as state citizens. The naturalized US citizen was not in a favorable position as were the white people mentioned in the Constitution, according to this article. The
            > entire subject of one's political status could bear some investigation, I believe.
            >
            > Bill
            >
            Those are the harsh facts to be found in public record, which narrows
            down who
            can qualify for as dejure State Citizenship or Freeman. May upset some
            folks that can't
            qualify.

            There still remains some actual useful recognitions of what you summarize.
            I guarantee that banks and US State Department understands and provides for
            this vital 'subtle' difference. For instance. Patriot Act II does not
            apply to me because
            of this, much to my un-taxed or un-tracked delight, photo ID passport
            included.

            You may get flack about what you found as everyone would want to enjoy
            dejure standing.
            Every state Constitution begins by naming 'dejure' men/women/people as
            the class
            of Citizens creating the Const. and everything following the list of
            unalienable rights,
            states its taboo for anything ever following in the Const. to have any
            affect on
            these people and rights, so only applies to Persons that can be classed
            in same list with
            Corporations.

            You may get attitudes - Americans were just too lazy, ignorant or stupid
            to know better.
            They are either misleading you on purpose or simply don't know the
            facts of history.
            First place to start to see what happens when intelligent brave 'free'
            men got over whelmed
            by force from Federal Gov't is the Whiskey Rebellion. Slaver-sugar-rum
            cartel bankster
            families got their way to kill competition via Georgie Washington.

            14 th red amendment did more than just give freed slaves a defacto
            legal standing - it also
            cut out the dejure people to participate in any official Gov't affairs
            or to file court suits
            or have standing in courts or be protected by Constitution.or hold
            office as prior to Lincoln's War.
            Troops with guns and bayonets were required to get state legislatures to
            sign and often
            enough it was freed slaves hustled in to fill seats of those not taking
            oath or pledge to Federal
            Union. Its was not lazy uncaring un-informed or fearful men forced and
            written around
            the current 'law' and policy. In not a US citizen it says its because
            you are a rebellious
            criminal to the courts and Federal Gov't so Lincoln's regime
            Constitution does not apply.

            How sad many will forget how long and harsh some southern states were
            punished
            economically because they were mostly white State and County level people.
            Hillbillies making do with what ever they could is one of those effects.
            Talk to some
            of the real ones, they know exactly what happened by stories handed down.

            hobot
          • Dave
            C & CA -- I am truly sorry to say this, but you might be out your $4000. The IRS agent is correct that the last address known to the Post Office is not the
            Message 5 of 13 , Oct 17, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              C & CA --

              I am truly sorry to say this, but you might be out your $4000.

              The IRS agent is correct that the last address known to the Post Office is not the concern of the IRS. The IRS Re-Structuring Act of 1998 allows the IRS to presume its records are accurate. This means the IRS agent involved in legal action (which included liens and levies) does not have to contact the local Post Office to check on any address changes. Even worse, you can inform the IRS many times of your new address and the records may not get updated. Ever. Some of the many BENEFITS our wonderful Congress gave us in the Act of 1998, which it DISHONESTLY claimed was an attempt to make the IRS more user-friendly.

              And the IRS will almost always file tax returns for those who do not themselves file. It usually takes the IRS about 22 months to get it done. The process involves at least one "internal hearing" and often two, and at least one agent hot to impress someone. The process results in a "Substitute for Return" and is signified in the IMF as "SFR 150" but it includes a series of documents, often as many as 80 or more pages, in order to get it done. The most important page in that file is the Form 13496 "Section 6020(b) Certification" wherein the agent swears that because of Delegation Order 182, he, that particular agent, has the authority to complete a return for you. If you check D.O. 182, you see that certain members of the IRS are indeed authorized to complete certain returns, but all the returns listed are business returns. And you will also find on further exploration that the particular agent who competed your return was not authorized by D.O. 182 or any other D.O. to complete any return at all. Still more research and you will find that no one in the IRS is authorized to complete any Form 1040 for anyone other than certain US Virgin Island residents.

              So the entire levy process was illegal from the very root issue of no one had any authority to complete a return in your name in order to complete an assessment in your name in order to create a tax bill owed to the IRS in order to create a levy to collect that tax bill.

              You will never be successful fighting the levy because it is the 4th step in a process that is totally LEGAL AS LONG AS THE FIRST STEP IS LEGAL. The only way to fight the levy is to start at the beginning.

              If you correctly fight the Form 14396, the levy has to go away because without the Form 14396, the levy is a fraudulent and unwarranted confiscation of funds. This is fact that the IRS cannot challenge and it will have to refund the money WITH punitive damages (assuming the individual has done all this properly!)

              The problem for you is that all this will take months and maybe more than a year. Plus it will be more complicated because you are outside the States. But it can be done, you can win it, and you can get a refund of your funds, plus possible damages.

              Yours in financial freedom,

              Dave Miner
              www.IRx-Solutions.com


              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Clair" <clair.hochstetler@...> wrote:
              >
              > And here is our similar situation (actually my wife's.) We moved to Australia 16 months ago. I need counsel on where to find the number to FAX in my CDP Hearing request after searching various levy documents online for hours and not finding one, and the IRS Manager I called to get it from won't give it. He is trying to play hardball, saying that we are already past the CDP hearing phase and into Collections appeal phase already! Unbeknownst to us they already filed the taxes for 04 and 05 on behalf of my wife!
              >
              > But the very first we even knew about a levy or even any taxes owing or any correspondence for 04 and 05 was when we noticed a hold at the bank in the US and we finally got a copy from the bank they sent by regular post to us here in Australia.
              >
              > The IRS had been sending the letters to a VERY OLD address - Post office was no longer forwarding mail to us from that address anymore. We received the credit union's copy of its notice of Levy along with its letter after being in the mail for almost two weeks, getting here to where we live in Australia. The bank is going to send in over $4000 on THIS MONDAY which it has put a 21-day hold on the entire amount in a bank account back in the States.
              >
              > Not according to the statutes I cited but I need to find a way to fax it in within the next half day, and we really don't want to keep TALKING with them, but establishing a good paper trail - and fast!
              >
              > -C and C.A. in Canberra
              >
            • Jim Stiner
              ... Citizenship was sold to the gullible public as a benefit. But in order for you to embrace it, you must be born in the United States, which is an
              Message 6 of 13 , Oct 18, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                > Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully
                >for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth
                >Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the
                >military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee
                >The 14th amd was not forced on us, it was forced on those people who
                >embraced the idea of wanting to be citizens.

                Citizenship was sold to the gullible public as a benefit.
                But in order for you to embrace it, you must be born in the United States,
                which is an impossibility, and you must agree to be subject to their
                jurisdiction.

                You cannot be born in an artificial entity. You were born on the land, but
                not the U.S., and what action did you take to make yourself subject to?
                If you came here from a foreign country, you pledged to be a citizen and
                renounced your previous citizenship, but not so with inhabitants.

                Jim

                _____




                No virus found in this incoming message.
                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2441 - Release Date: 10/17/09
                13:08:00
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.