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

Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance

Expand Messages
  • Coalbunny
    Here is the pamphlet. I have to ask which side Sheriff Joe Arpaio is really on. carl
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 23, 2012
    View Source
    Here is the pamphlet. I have to ask which side Sheriff Joe Arpaio is
    really on.
    carl
  • randyconn
    Things have changed since 1985 when Arizona state senator Wayne Stump wrote a letter to all the Arizona law enforcement about people without driver s licenses
    Message 2 of 5 , Feb 29, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Things have changed since 1985 when Arizona state senator Wayne Stump wrote a letter to all the Arizona law enforcement about people without driver's licenses and goverment contracts traveling freely.

      http://www.cyberclass.net/stumpletters.htm

      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Coalbunny <coalbunny@...> wrote:
      >
      > Here is the pamphlet. I have to ask which side Sheriff Joe Arpaio is
      > really on.
      > carl
      >
    • enilak666@yahoo.com
      What things have changed since that time? Have the laws that protect the unalienable Right to use the public highways changed, or have the state(s) continued
      Message 3 of 5 , Mar 3, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        What "things" have changed since that time? Have the laws that protect the unalienable Right to use the public highways changed, or have the state(s) continued to willfully ignore those Rights? I believe the issue yet remains unresolved regarding what is a right and what is a privilege, with all it's regulations and fees, fines, etc. It all seems to be a matter of view point, with the courts having an agenda to not reveal the complete truth to an ignorant public.
         


        --- On Wed, 2/29/12, randyconn <yahoo@...> wrote:

        From: randyconn <yahoo@...>
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, February 29, 2012, 6:23 AM

         
        Things have changed since 1985 when Arizona state senator Wayne Stump wrote a letter to all the Arizona law enforcement about people without driver's licenses and goverment contracts traveling freely.

        http://www.cyberclass.net/stumpletters.htm

        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Coalbunny <coalbunny@...> wrote:
        >
        > Here is the pamphlet. I have to ask which side Sheriff Joe Arpaio is
        > really on.
        > carl
        >

      • Frog Farmer
        ... The consciousness of the people has changed. Their willingness to waive rights for privileges has never been higher. ... Since winning the drivers
        Message 4 of 5 , Mar 4, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > What "things" have changed since that time?

          The consciousness of the people has changed. Their willingness to waive
          rights for privileges has never been higher.

          > Have the laws that protect
          > the unalienable Right to use the public highways changed, or have the
          > state(s) continued to willfully ignore those Rights?

          Since winning the drivers license, registration and insurance issues
          three times three different ways in California, I can only conclude that
          the people (at least the ones I personally know) cannot be bothered to
          know law or about rights and other involved issues that take more than
          15 minutes of thought. The last time I won, the judge read a short list
          of reasons why I won to the filled courtroom, and then the next guy who
          was charged with the exact same charges as I was, and standing directly
          in line behind me, proceeded to plead guilty and accept punishment.
          Apparently he had been day-dreaming during the preceding twenty minutes.
          That was the last time I ever had to deal with the issues, in 1985.

          There have been a few key facts revealed here on this list that go
          routinely ignored by most, because voluntary slavery is very
          comfortable, until it isn't anymore. One is the true status of what
          people call, without knowing which ones they are, "the legal tender
          laws". It is very important to know Thomas Jefferson's (as an example
          of a free man from that period) definition of "dollar" that is
          permanently enshrined in the law. Then if one thinks that is a wrong
          definition, one should offer the new one and the date they believe it
          came into existence. Anyone here care to give it a shot?!

          (Oops! That could be interpreted as a Socratic question, so let me
          provide my answer: Barry might deign it worth his time because it is his
          list.) I personally get tired repeating myself.

          On another note, the last two days have provided me with two
          confrontations with city police wherein I was asked for identification.
          The encounters ended without me showing any "ID" (I know what the Q in
          IQ stands for...what does the D in ID stand for??) but both parties were
          invited to drop any official persona and act as friends in the
          neighborhood. This invitation was accepted and they got my nickname
          that friends call me, and they never said they wanted any more. I
          educated them, and let them know that I would never use the violations I
          showed them they were already guilty of in connection with these two
          meetings we had (a freebie??). Because I did not want to waste time, I
          dismissed them after proving that they were not ready for trouble and
          that nobody wanted any anyway, right?

          The technical brick was California Penal Code 810 among a few others.

          Imagine when asked for ID, and if you are in a hurry, you reply with (in
          a strange alien sounding voice) "take me to your leader". Failure to
          provide identification documents coupled with a demand for an
          "immediate" trip to the magistrate, versus a trip that contains
          "necessary delay" (such as with a rights waiving subject compliant one)
          would bring into question WHO gets to feel your disqualification wrath
          next, according to PC810 provisions. Today my contestant for
          credibility explained that no magistrate is on duty on Saturday. I told
          him how finding malfeasance and misfeasance was not as challenging as it
          once had been and that he probably would not want to cause trouble by
          having me require the law be followed in every jot and tittle!

          So, instead, we all decide to have a nice day, right? Right. OR we are
          off and having fun in a new charade designed to keep locals apparently
          employed. This is the subject for discussion I would raise with the
          first person I failed to disqualify (so far, nobody has qualified,
          boo-hoo-hoo!): Would you like this to cost the system the most or the
          least? I can modify my reactions in the interests of the common good,
          but current events have me in a quandary. Only a few years ago when I
          was being trained to manage a few million dollars of what I refer to as
          "mind money", there were only "3 trillion dollars" in the world's credit
          system. Today, the number grows by billions with each breath. Last
          biggest number I heard was in the hundreds of trillions. I cannot find
          a volunteer Certified Public Accountant who wants to go on record
          auditing and preparing tax returns for the monetary instruments that I
          present to him for that purpose, which I received in trade or in return
          for my time, etc. None has yet known of the Kahre case!!! So, are we
          after a big bottom line on this case, or the smallest possible? I will
          try to please! Are we laying them off or making busy work for them??
          How many can we cram into this bus??

          > I believe the
          > issue yet remains unresolved regarding what is a right and what is a
          > privilege, with all it's regulations and fees, fines, etc. It all
          > seems to be a matter of view point, with the courts having an agenda
          > to not reveal the complete truth to an ignorant public.

          It's a matter of admissions and confessions made by the proud arrogant
          ignorant willing subjects who waive the right in return for the
          privilege. It's because of lies they believe and even defend! They do
          it out of ignorance, laziness, stupidity, fear, cowardice, greed, lack
          of morals, convenience and expedience. I never look to the court to
          instruct me, even though it might do so. I look to instruct the court!
          (If I'm in a charitable mood - as my time here runs out I'm getting
          really cranky!)

          Regards,

          FF
        • Frog Farmer
          ... I think that any question is better than no question! ... I know what the Q in IQ stands for. What does the D in ID stand for? The ID as opposed
          Message 5 of 5 , Mar 10, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > -----Original Message-----
            > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 2:16 PM
            > To: frogfrmr@...
            > Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-
            > American stance
            >
            > Please forgive me if I am asking stupid questions, but I have not been
            > included in this ongoing discussion..I WANT TO KNOW MORE!!

            I think that any question is better than no question!

            > I have this weird opinion that I, as a free American citizen, should
            > not have to give my personal ID info to any hired jackanapes who asks.

            I know what the "Q" in "IQ" stands for. What does the "D" in "ID" stand
            for? The ID as opposed to the EGO? Just kidding.

            > I know this sounds reactionary, and hope that you might show me or
            > tell me, what authority they have ( unless I am caught committing a
            > crime of some kind) to demand my personal information under threat of
            > hauling me off to jail?

            I know of no law, and no one has been able to show me any law, that
            requires one not under contract to prove one's identity. And I count on
            the law that requires an "immediate" visit to a magistrate, California
            Vehicle code 40305 (versus a visit after necessary delay, section 40302)
            when I fail to provide such identification and demand the immediate
            hearing, whereupon my plan if I ever get that far is to disqualify both
            other participants.

            > And regarding a local political issue, does the local governing body (
            > in this case, the Borough Assembly) have the right to effectively TAKE
            > part of my land, without giving me notice?
            >
            > I hope you will direct me to answers to these two questions.

            Regarding your political issue, it has been said that politics is that
            which is unsettled in the law. I don't know enough about your situation
            to make comment upon it.

            Regards,

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