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

Warning: wife abusing, counterfeiting, terrorist on the loose

Expand Messages
  • aspenestimator
    I am a 39 year old male from Raleigh County, WV with no criminal record, but I have have found myself in somewhat of a pickle with my current wife. For years I
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I am a 39 year old male from Raleigh County, WV with no criminal record, but I have have found myself in somewhat of a pickle with my current wife. For years I have studied almost anything related to the new truthful sciences, the military, the government, UFO's, free energy and came across the A4V and Sovereign movement. I am wide awake to the takeover of our constitutional rights and have made it a point to quit being a conspiracy theorist and become a teacher and activist. When I explained to my wife how the A4V worked and downloaded the UCC-1 forms and told her I was planning to go all the way in becoming a Sovereign, then an already unhealthy relationship became a REAL nightmare and a real conspiracy.
      I'm not going to try to convince anyone that I'm perfect. I'm not, it could be said that I am a lackluster husband. But I'm guilty of no more than emotional negligence. So we have been discussing divorce for a while now. She is scared of the knowledge that I possess and believe, and she can't be "awakened." After we were married I found out that she is actually really and truly what Mental Hygiene Warrants were created for. She fits every facet of the legal definition that guides the intent of the implementation of such a warrant.
      On the morning of the 12th, the day after I downloaded the UCC-1, she awakened me and she seemed scared, told me that she loved me but that I had to leave because (she implied) she feared for her or my safety. From a deep sleep it seemed that she was trying to tell me that there might be an intruder in our secluded rural home. I asked if there was someone in the house or outside and she lead me to believe that there was probably someone outside. I grabbed my S&W .40 put on my clothes and went to check around to see. She said that she had gotten two anonymous messages on her Facebook account that said " If she stayed out of the way that she would be fine" and that she had received a call from NY from a +/- 50 year old male that said the same thing. She could not produce a phone number from the caller ID nor would she show me the messages. She only kept insisting that I had to go or that I had to leave to the point of yelling it at me over and over. I saw the clock and realized that it was 2 hours before I had to get up and 4 hours before I had to be at work. I told her I wasn't leaving #1 because I hadn't done anything wrong and #2 because I didn't have anywhere to go to anyway. So I kept trying to get anything out of her that I could to understand what was going on. She wouldn't explain anything or produce any evidence whatsoever. Then she said if I didn't leave she would call the police. I said if that was what she felt like she needed to do then go ahead. I figured if she was that bat-shit crazy then by all means please do. I was sitting beside of her when she did call 911 and she made statement that she feared for her life etc and made the implication that she was being threatened by me. I am sure that I can be heard on the tape asking her why she was doing what she was. But I have never EVER lifted a hand to hurt this or any other woman, nor verbally assaulted anyone for any reason. I went to make coffee. She went back to the bedroom and made another call. I do not know to whom or what was said, but she returned taunting me saying "I hope you're happy, the FBI is involved now." and I noticed that she had a duffel bag packed. She also said that it would be a little while before the police got there. I asked her if she was threatening me somehow, and told her " If you have sent someone here to hurt me then you had better not have sent someone that you love or care about because if anyone came through the door to harm either of us they will leave in a body bag with a bullet hole in them. At this point I unhooked my phone line because I really didn't need anymore BS and I figured if the police called back and there was no answer it would expedite their arrival which I welcomed because I needed to get this over with and go to work. She took her bag outside and said that if I wouldn't leave then she would have to go and I would get in trouble for sending a woman out in the cold who had two heart attacks. I gathered up some papers to prove to the police who I am. A blank no-fault divorce packet that gave some evidence as to the state of our marriage ( most people don't just keep a set lying around) a copy of my mortgage bill which is in my name only, a cable / phone bill, in my name only, a pay-stub with my name and address on it. So any officer could clearly see that I was the owner of this property, employed, and had a right to protect it. Keep in mind that I still didn't know if there was any truth to what she was saying and that there may have been an unseen danger to our safety outside of my home somewhere. When the police arrived they parked in a defensive cover position in front of my home, on my property and drew weapons on me. I had my pistol in my belt in the small of my back and my papers in my hand. I approached them and told them that I was the owner of the property and that I was armed and proceeded toward them with my hands in the air. They asked what I had and I told them and where it was located and told them " I will surrender my weapon if you will secure and protect my personal property." ver batim. I turned around lifted my coat and they took my weapon... I thought that a contract had just been established. I offered them no resistance in patting me down and establishing that I wasn't a threat to them. I told them about what she had said in order to let them know that they may still be in danger from that possible unseen threat. They cuffed me for their safety as I explained my situation. One officer asked me if he could search my home and I told him no. I said I understand that you need to verify that the my wife who called you is ok and not harmed or tied up or whatever, but that he could go to the door and talk to her. He said that if she let him in then she could let him search it. I said that it really didn't matter then it appeared that since I was hand cuffed that he was going to do whatever he wanted to do anyway. He asked if there was anything I wanted to make him aware of or if any illegal activities, I told him no, that the inside of the house was secure and legal when I left it. I stayed with the officer in the road as the other went to the house. The officer in the road started making sovereign citizen chit chat saying that people that knew what it meant were a threat to law enforcement and lead a conversation about being a "prepper" himself, basically befriending me playing a good cop / bad cop game. It was cold out so he wanted me to get in the car with him and I did. He left my papers laying on the trunk of the car and they blew off when he wanted to turn the car around to get back into my driveway. I asked him to stop so that I could get them but he ignored me and ran over them and left them in the road.
      About 12 years ago I had photocopied some Federal Reserve Notes that a couple of friends and I had used as "Monopoly Money" to play poker with. There were about 4 photo copies of a $100 bill a few $50's and ten or so $1's. Only one side of the paper was printed on, they were not the exact size of a real bill..close but not exact, and wrinkled. Furthermore the printer head left lines on the copies and a very simple examination would draw into question whether it was a real bill or not. He said that she handed them to him willingly in his police report and told him that it was counterfeit money. Note that I was not then nor ever accused of trying to pass them off as real money. Nor could they be construed as something passable enough to be traded for anything of value. His report also stated that I had said that I made threats of harm, I had I suppose, not directed at her but to this unseen entity she claimed contacted her.
      A friend of mine had asked me to keep an AK-47 for him along with an unopened box of ammunition and several large pieces of farming equipment. It is a legal registered weapon with no involvement in any crimes. The officer brought all of this to the police car and placed it in the trunk. He asked me about the "counterfeit money" and I explained to him as I just did in text.
      I had also made some O.R.M.U.S ( orbitally rearranged monatomic elements - see you tube vids). which involves extracting rare earth elements from almost any substance with acids and bases.They can be eaten to increase your health or used as a plant food. I used sulfuric acid also called "Liquid Fire" available in any hardware store as a drain opener, ( I had in my possession about 1 qt. ) and Sodium Hydroxide as a base, which is Lye or concentrated bleach, which I made myself. The two neutralize the P.H. of one another when mixed, which they were. A strong odor of bleach was present in my basement and she apparently told them that I was making a Chlorine gas bomb or something to that effect. I offered an explanation to an uneducated officer that of course fell on deaf ears. As we left my home he left every door open, unsecured, unprotected and probably the biggest threat to me and them in my home. I told him she would likely clean out my home while I was gone and he said that nothing could be removed while I was in custody. I asked if I was being charged or arrested and they evaded the question and said that they just wanted to talk to me some more. A strange thought occurred to me that she had possibly hoped that only one officer would come as they had before and that she was going to shoot him and blame it on me. You hate to think that about your wife, but it was the only reasonable conclusion given the facts.
      At the police station I was fingerprinted 3 times and told by the Sheriff that my social was associated with at least 5 other names and that I was likely a victim of identity theft. One of the officers lifted my fingerprints off of the scanner glass with clear tape, saying that he was cleaning the glass. I do not know what was done with the tape. Then in custody, handcuffed in a holding cell I was told I was being charged with the felony of Counterfeiting and misdemeanor Domestic assault - first offense, and transported to the regional jail. Let me be clear about something here, I assume the Domestic was because of the "bomb" allegation, do not mistake that with any sort of battery or physical abuse. The officer saw that she was completely unharmed or I would have been charged with that in addition. I was then denied a phone call until I had been given an injection that I was told was a TB test, but nobody ever checked to see if I had a skin reaction and I have been sick ever since. I wouldn't consent to it at first but I felt it in my best interests to do whatever I could to expedite the process of getting out. I wasn't taken before a magistrate in person but told it was some kind of Skype video conference which could have as easily been a prerecorded video that was almost unintelligible to me. I said verbally that I did not understand the charges and was forced to sign a bunch of blah blah which waived one right in order to keep another. When I was allowed to use a phone it was recorded and only allowed to dial bail bondsmen numbers and was denied a phone book. My bail was set at $150,000 even though there was no indication that any violent act or even plausible charge had been filed against me. I plead indigence because I was told by my employer if I didn't show up for work and didn't call them that I would be fired. I didn't know the phone number and it didn't look like I would be getting out anytime soon. I was NEVER actually able to talk on the phone with anyone but I was fortunate that my friend ( who owned the AK-47 ) listened to the recording and realized that I was in jail and came to see me after some time. The phone system required that an account of $25 be set up to talk with me for collect calls even though his home is only about 5 miles from the jail.
      The next day I was taken from my cell and told there was someone who wanted to meet me, I asked who and they said that they would introduce themselves. So I had no option other than to go with them since I didn't know who it was. Turns out to be the FBI who was talking about "Sovereign Citizens" when I came to the room. I cooperated with them, truthfully about my feelings on the movement, how I feel about the government, military, anything they asked really and they told me that a lot of people thought I was a conspiracy theorist and may be a danger to others and the government. I do talk to a lot of people but have always said that the world problems were not going to be resolved using the same level of conscience that created them. Peaceful sovereignty is the only option. I am strongly opposed to being taxed in order to build bombs that kill indiscriminately overseas. The meeting went well I guess, they asked if they could search my property but they had already asked me about things in my home so I knew they had already been there anyway and I signed a consent form for them. They just wanted to see if I would say no to cast some doubt that they may have missed something. My wife's name is on the deed so she consented to it anyway. Then they contacted my friend, asked him questions and basically dismissed the notion to my friend that I was of any interest to them. The same was told to me by my Public Defender.After 9 days of basically sleeping on the concrete floor with the equivalent of a half a couch cushion under me with no pillow, a toilet 4 feet away from my face, a fluorescent light burning 24/7 and being fed a nutritionally inadequate chemical laden pile of crap, all the while being sleep deprived...I was allowed to see my attorney. He said that since the charges were filed in tandem that if I plead guilty to the domestic assault that my bail would be reduced to $500 and he would flip the case in a circuit court where the FBI would have to pick it up, since they had already dropped it then it would be dismissed altogether. That's not to say that I believed him, but it was better than going back in the hole.
      My lovely wife decided to serve me divorce papers on the 17th while I was incarcerated wherein she admitted by her own sworn statements that she has mental anxieties, emotional, and physical problems. She's also a pathological liar, has O.C.D, is an alcoholic, devoid of any kind of societal or personal responsibility...but I don't guess you tell a Family Law master those sort of things if you want to have a case. She asked for the divorce because I was incarcerated because of "abuse and domestic assault", which again was related to the Chlorine bomb allegation, though she insinuated it as a sort of Domestic violence charge that she had against me. She claims that she has been cut off from her friends and family even though any of her Facebook friends can attest to the fact that she appears online and comments almost daily for several years, posting pictures and articles and a lot of the information that I have personally educated her about in order to dazzle them, of course me studying this information is called "obsessive behavior" in one of her divorce allegations. She conferred with my friends on Facebook saying that she had been neglected and denied medical treatment although I have credit card receipts where I personally paid for her heart medications until she could get her Social Security insurance. I have personally made her throw up 3 times from being drunk and ingesting a whole bottle of various pills, saving her life. I had to call an Ambulance for her and have her taken to Fairmont General to have her stomach pumped and carbon neutralized while we were there overnight for my job. She complained on two separate occasions of having chest pains so I took her and admitted her to the Emergency rooms of St.Thomas Hospital and Appalachian hospital where the doctors couldn't find anything wrong with her so she ripped off the hospital garb and needles and left saying that they were stupid and demanded to go home, both times. I have seen her cut herself, burn herself with a cigarette laid between her and her brother's arms. Those matching scars would speak volumes in a court room. She has openly accused me of rape and physical abuse, and since she has many friends and family in the military, I certainly feel that those sort of lies put my personal safety in jeopardy. Of course she has never filed any such charges with the police. She lied by omission of about $10 million dollars that she will receive in a short time from land in Hawaii inherited from her deceased father, and a lawsuit with a drug company which has already offered her a couple million dollars as an out-of-court settlement, both of which are pending. I don't want or need a dime of it.The very day I was incarcerated she used my credit cards and went on a little celebratory spending spree, taking one or 2 friends out to eat several times over the week I was in jail, buying $220 worth of "Vampire Wine" off of the internet along with $420 to a the cable company ( Sunday ticket?), a trip to a bar, and about$1000 worth of other things. She was also nice enough to buy herself a $40 robe from me on my Amazon account on the 20th, the day before I was released, I guess she figured I would probably miss Christmas?? I cancelled that account which belonged to me and had given her a secondary account card to use in the event of an emergency while I was gone away for work. She has no credit at all, nor has she had any sort of substantial income during our marriage. She's 37 and has never had a driver's license. She has never maintained any sort of responsibility that "normal" or even disabled people do in order to function within society. Her Mom had given her a car that I had put in both of our names so that I could carry insurance on it for her. I paid the insurance for about a year while the car never moved.The one time it did move she dented the fender by backing it under the porch somehow. She asked for the court to grant her "custody" of my 15 year old dog in the divorce ..like my dog is a child. Let me also point out that between the middle of the month of December and the 10th of January getting an attorney is like pulling a 3" nail out of wood with your fingers covered in Vaseline.
      She has called drunk, crying to my friend that went my bond using his home as collateral, claiming that I was shutting off utilities, saying I am calling and harassing her, saying I was closing MUTUAL accounts, emailing her pictures of women I am with and threatening him and his home with going to the Magistrate if he didn't tell her where I am. All of which are lies. I am at my wits end. I did contact a Magistrate to inquire as to what to do to get a Mental Hygiene and he said since we were divorcing it just sounded to him like I was just " trying to get back at her for divorcing me." I have to answer her divorce summons by the 6th. I swear that EVERYTHING I have said here is true and can prove it by receipts, documentation, or other's testimony.
      My plan of action is to answer her PRO-SE divorce petition saying that I DO NOT admit her allegation that irreconcilable differences exist. Point out that that since this is styled as a civil case there must be either a contract dispute or a claim in tort and whereas it appears that there is no damaged party, she has no cause of action and thus no-case to answer which brings into question a jurisdictional issue, and respectfully request that the petition be denied and dismissed. I feel if she has been damaged then she should have to file suit against me and prove her case rather than just making a bunch of unfounded...I will call them allegations but they are really just lies. This at the very least should give me time to clear myself of the other charges of counterfeiting and Domestic assault (1st). I'm not sure where those cases stand, I haven't spoken to my public defender and I realize I probably need to fire him for having me plea to anything but it seemed to me that I was going to have to in order to get out and research this. The counterfeiting law here basically reads that if I print a pretty picture and tell someone that it is Moon money and say that $5 of it is worth $10 Federal Reserve Notes and trade them claiming it has value, then I have counterfeited or if I try to pass a copy,however poorly or professionally it was made, of a Reserve note for something of tangible value then I am guilty of counterfeiting. I have done neither and feel I am not guilty of this crime. Given the whole issue of what the constitution defines as "Money" the only way what I did could be most stringently construed as counterfeiting if it were good copies of silver certificates and I tried to trade them for something of perceived or tangible value. The Domestic, if she or the officer actually believed that there may have been a bomb that I made, then I could see that charge being filed, however a substantial amount of proof is still required to make it stick. It was concentrated Clorox in a 1 gallon wine jug that I saved to whiten laundry with, no more no less. I am not sure how to proceed with this part of my dilemma. I don't have much expertise by way of drafting legal documents and I suppose I am asking if my plan is plausible in the divorce case, and advice on how to proceed with the Felony / Misdemeanor charges. I also feel that when I am cleared of the charges that since my picture was posted on the internet as an inmate at the Southern WV Regional Jail's website and in the newspaper the she is liable to some degree for Defamation for having made accusations that she knows were lies.
      Respectfully Submitted,
      Les
    • Mike
      Greetings Les, I am sorry to hear about your troubles and I hate to be the bearer of bad news.... I suspect you are in a battle that you are not AT ALL
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 26, 2012
      Greetings Les,

      I am sorry to hear about your troubles and I hate to be the bearer of bad news....

      I suspect you are in a battle that you are not AT ALL prepared for.

      I am very busy so I can only give you a very short response.

      >came across the A4V and Sovereign movement

      I believe this to be "pay-triot mythology" which you should avoid AT ALL COSTS. Can you find ONE Supreme Court Case that supports these concepts?

      I have found only one source that identifies a very limited use for filing a finance statement. I am attaching this document.

      I will admit that I suspect that the finance statement has limited additional value in relation to incarcerated "criminals", but I have NO verification of this theory.

      You personally ARE NOT, CAN NOT, "be sovereign". In America, "the People" are sovereign. That is the collective whole, not an individual "person".

      Unfortunately, "the People" are brainwashed and little information is revealed by the "gatekeepers" about how to be free of their "system".

      In addition, there are "agent provocateurs" who are paid to mislead the gullible.

      It is ALL about money, and "they" don't want one of "their cash-cows" wandering off the plantation. 

      >Turns out to be the FBI who was talking about "Sovereign Citizens" when I came to the room. I cooperated with them, truthfully about my feelings on the movement, how I feel about the government, military, anything they asked really and they told me that a lot of people thought I was a conspiracy theorist and may be a danger to others and the government.

      Telling the cops and the FBI that you are "sovereign" has likely made your immediate future look very dim. Consider yourself blessed that you didn't get shot!

      ALSO:

      In my opinion, you just convicted yourself in federal court and by disclosing your beliefs you have shot yourself in the head.

      Have you never heard the advice: "Remain SILENT!"?

      If you believe that you are "innocent until proven guilty" then you really HAVE NOT done very much studying OR waking up. ALL  the lower courts operate from the perspective that:

      1. You are a "U.S. citizen" (14th Amendment). This is comparable to "slave";
      2. Policy enforcers are "officials". In a contest between your word and their word, you LOSE!
      3. Unless you can learn really fast and throw EVERY ROADBLOCK in their way to slow them down, you WILL BE CONVICTED THROUGH SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.

      If you want your Rights, you have to fight for them in court - not discuss them with policy enforcers who get paid to put you in jail.

      After several years of my own research, several federal lawsuits, several "criminal" court cases and "Family Court" confrontations I have found that the shortest, "best" explanation to the "problem" is delineated in a book called "The Red Amendment", by L.B. Bork.

      The author indicates the "Remedy" but because each persons situation is different he does not provide specific "forms" or "processes" that you can simply copy and paste into your "own" pleadings.

      I have known about this book for several years and only read it for the 1st time one month ago. It has pretty much confirmed much of what I had concluded on my own and filled in a couple of "grey areas".

      Simply put: I have come to conclude that one MUST correct his/her "political status" to "get out of the Matrix".

      I am open to hearing any literary criticism concerning this book and it's concepts.

      A case I am using in a Pleading I am writing today is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 654-658 - Supreme Court 1898. It has a comprehensive opinion on citizenship that dovetails nicely with "how" I am asserting my Rights in court. I will consider uploading it here, if Bear does not object.

      >when she did call 911 and she made statement that she feared for her life etc and made the implication that she was being threatened by me.

      All it takes for a woman to get a retraining order against a man or file a domestic abuse claim is the statement: "I am afraid." That's it! It doesn't matter who or what she is afraid of. Those three words is all it takes. (Been there, done that.) read the law and you can find it for yourself. I was shocked when it happened to me.

      >I was then denied a phone call until I had been given an injection that I was told was a TB test

      Why didn't you decline? The "authorities" are NOT YOUR FRIENDS!  Why did you choose to OBEY them? Or acquiesce to them?

      I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad news, but unless you learn really fast how to defend yourself and figure out how to have that evidence of counterfeiting squashed, I would suggest you find yourself the best attorney you can find.

      Believe me, I have NO love for attorneys, but with the Great Spirits intervention, you may find your self with a good one and it sounds to me that you are ill prepared to do this alone. 

      They are not ALL bottom-feeders.

      Blessings.

      Michael
       
      Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.

      From: aspenestimator <aspenestimator@...>
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 3:02 PM
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Warning: wife abusing, counterfeiting, terrorist on the loose

       
      >> snipped



    • Legalbear
      ... I believe this to be pay-triot mythology which you should avoid AT ALL COSTS. Can you find ONE Supreme Court Case that supports these concepts? I’m
      Message 3 of 8 , Dec 26, 2012
      • 0 Attachment

        >came across the A4V and Sovereign movement

         

        I believe this to be "pay-triot mythology" which you should avoid AT ALL COSTS. Can you find ONE Supreme Court Case that supports these concepts?

         

        I’m agreeing with Mike on this.

         

        You personally ARE NOT, CAN NOT, "be sovereign". In America, "the People" are sovereign. That is the collective whole, not an individual "person".

         

        I disagree with this based on West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett and what the court said there about individual consent. The point of the Barnette case: You can’t coerce the consent by way of a law threatening individuals with jail. And, the majority, collectively, cannot put the minority’s rights to a vote.

         

        Quotes from that case have been previously posted to this forum. Search for the word consent here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/messages

         

        >Turns out to be the FBI who was talking about "Sovereign Citizens" when I came to the room. I cooperated with them, truthfully about my feelings on the movement, how I feel about the government, military, anything they asked really and they told me that a lot of people thought I was a conspiracy theorist and may be a danger to others and the government.

         

        Telling the cops and the FBI that you are "sovereign" has likely made your immediate future look very dim. Consider yourself blessed that you didn't get shot!

         

        Check out the word sovereign in Chisholm v Georgia and Yick Wo v. Hopkins.

         

        From Chisholm in particular this quote:

         

        It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a Court of Justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the Courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African 472*472 slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. Id. @ 471-2.

         

        And from Yick Wo this quote:

         

        When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed 370*370 to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. Id. @ 369-70.

         

        The point of Yick Wo, no man is subject to the arbitrary will of another man in this country even if that man works for the government.

         

        If you want your Rights, you have to fight for them in court - not discuss them with policy enforcers who get paid to put you in jail.

         

        If you’re going to talk to the policy enforcers it should be in large part to remind them of their oaths to uphold the constitutions and give you ALL of your rights; including the right to believe you are a sovereign. Also, to point out that it is a federal crime to put you in fear of exercising your rights:

         

        18 USC § 241:

         

         

        If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

         

        If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

        They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

         

        To them your question should be, ‘Are you conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to me by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of my having so exercised the same??”

         

        A case I am using in a Pleading I am writing today is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 654-658 - Supreme Court 1898. It has a comprehensive opinion on citizenship that dovetails nicely with "how" I am asserting my Rights in court. I will consider uploading it here, if Bear does not object.

         

        No objection.

         

         

        Call me at: 720-675-7230

        On Skype: legalbear

        Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

        Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

        tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

        My blog: legalbearsblog.com

        Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

        (formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

      • Mike
        Bear,  ... I have not read this case yet; and reading it may alter my views somewhat; however, I have concluded that Registering to Vote indicates an
        Message 4 of 8 , Dec 26, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Bear, 

          >I disagree with this based on West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett and what the court said there about individual consent. 

          I have not read this case yet; and reading it may alter my views somewhat; however, I have concluded that "Registering to Vote" indicates an individuals consent to be governed by that "system". Voter registrations require a person to be a "U.S. citizen." 

          When you register to vote, you agree to accept an "Elective Franchise". 

          When we look at The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, P.L. 103-31 we find: "TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 20 -ELECTIVE FRANCHISE SUBCHAPTER I-H - NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION" (emphasis mine).

          Title 42 concerns "civil rights".

          Does this "elective franchise" make a living man a corporation and responsible for "Income Taxes" and other encumbrances of "this state"? The federal government seems to have usurped the de jure States through legislative fiat of the Fourteenth Amendment and other means.

          Additionally Title 42 Sec. 1973gg FINDINGS AND PURPOSES states:
          (a) Findings
          The Congress finds that -
          (1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;
          (2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the 
          exercise of that right; and
          (3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct 
          and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and 
          disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial 
          minorities. (my! How the tables have turned! Now de jure State Nationals are denied the "right to vote"!)
          (b) Purposes
          The purposes of this subchapter are -
          (1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who 
          register to vote in elections for Federal office;
          (2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this 
          subchapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as 
          voters in elections for Federal office;
          (3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and
          (4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.

          So despite this legislatures claims that the purpose of that Public Law is to increase voter participation there is a deliberate exclusion of State Nationals, lawful State inhabitants who are not also federal citizens.

          How come State Nationals cannot vote in State elections only and simply not vote in federal "elections"? Is it that there are no de jure State offices? Can a slave occupy an office in this state? It appears so. I can offer you additional documentation if you would like it.

          The word "franchise" is defined as: "
          Noun
          An authorization granted by a government or company to an individual or group enabling them to carry out specified commercial activities...


          Does this "franchise" create the "office of a "person" (corporate fiction)? 

          The "new" Thirteenth Amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."?

          That amendment indicates a distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" servitude. C.f. U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794

          "The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution, which left to each state to decide exclusively for itself whether slavery should or should not exist as a local institution, and what disabilities should attach to those of the servile race within its limits. The whites needed no relief or protection, and they are practically unaffected by the amendment. The emancipation which it wrought was an act of great national grace, and was doubtless intended to reach in its effects as to everyone within its scope, than the manumission by a private individual." See: U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794

          This case does not state that "voluntary servitude" is lawful, it does however state: " what disabilities should attach to those of the servile race within its limits".

          Through careful parsing of the grammar it appears that the feds now determine "how a person may enslave themselves". It is no longer an issue for the states to decide.

          An American can voluntarily "give up" his unaLIENable rights by voluntarily "registering to vote" an “accept” an “elective franchise”. As such, an American can “consent to be governed” by that cabal. The Americans who chose this election appear to be in rebellion to his lawful republic (See: 14th Amendment) and has agreed to VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE - WHICH IS NOT UNLAWFUL in the United States and most other civilized countries.

          In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature, or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had, not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same law-making power, of which the act in question is an amendment; but also to the condition, and to the history, of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.” See: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 654 - Supreme Court 1898

          The Chisholm v Georgia case supports my assertion that the People as a collective IS THE SOVEREIGNTY.  and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

          Personal note, Bear: I think you are AWESOME! I cannot tell you how many times something you post is directly related to what I am seeking to learn.

          This does not mean we will always agree, as above. 

          I will be reviewing the other citations you have posted. I expect I will learn something more as a result.

          I appreciate your work.

          Thank you, 

          Michael
           
          Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.

          From: Legalbear <bear@...>
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:58 PM
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Warning: wife abusing, counterfeiting, terrorist on the loose

           
          >> snipped


        • Legalbear
          Hobot originally posted this full of typos. I highly valued what Hobot and the Informer had to say so I paid $5 and had it edited here:
          Message 5 of 8 , Dec 28, 2012
          • 0 Attachment

            Hobot originally posted this full of typos. I highly valued what Hobot and the Informer had to say so I paid $5 and had it edited here: http://fiverr.com/revlac/proof-read-any-document-article-or-essay-up-to-10000-words and got it back looking like this:

             

             

            Excuse me, but almost no one here is really a US citizen. Simply filling in voter registration or driving license forms etc. does not establish a real US citizen. One must make an application, have a court approve it and then create a record of it.  So, if you’re born on the soil in one of the 50 union states then you don't need to do anything aside from reporting your true political jurisdiction, i.e. what your name is and how it’s written, where you live, and what faith and law you hold to.

             

            Here's some material on this from The Informer.

             

            The Statute at large to become a US citizen is the act of Congress of April 14, 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, 1; Rev. St. 2165) states that “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise.”

             

            Do YOU understand what NOT OTHERWISE MEANS? OF COURSE YOU DON’T. A 4th grade mentality cannot understand this. This is what the corporations’ education system has done to every PERSON in AMERICA. YOU ARE A PERSON, because you pay taxes don’t you ? You have a driving licence, right? You VOTE, right? Have a birth certificate? Do everything the corporations tell you to, right? WRONG! THESE DO NOT MAKE YOU A SUBJECT. Well, I found a case that will knock these preconceived ideas out of the park, and that if not heeded will keep you a subject of the corporations.

             

            The case is an 1893 called CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. REUM (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 29, 1893). NOW I SAID PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT? OF COURSE DUMMY, THE RED WORDS. JUST because you voted DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A US CITIZEN OR GOT ANY LATCHES, FILING TAX FORMS, GETTING LICENSES, ETC., ETC, BIRTH CERTIFICATES ARE ALL IN THE CATEGORY OF AND NOT OTHERWISE. See you have to pay attention. The case where Mr. Reum actually voted was not germane, said the court. Even though he voted, it did NOT make him a citizen. Mr. Reum went back and forth - I am, I am not - so many times, which was why the court ruled against him. He had not signed his self away from his king and was not entitled to be a NATURALIZED US citizen. Sure, he registered to vote, and he did so too. But the court said the Statute stated that you had to do three things to become a US citizen. HAVE YOU DONE ANY after reading what the court said, what the statute at large said? I now quote the court and I know you will not pay attention, so I will put in red what you will gloss over and never give a thought to.

             

            The process was clearly stated as conclusions of law by the Court. The Court went on to state three factors whereby YOU needed to comply with to become a US Citizen and NOT OTHERWISE. They are, quoting the court:

             

            FIRST. He shall, at least two years prior to his admission, declare before a proper court his intention to become a citizen of the United States (Mr. Reum did this) and to renounce his allegiance to the potentate or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen or subject (Mr. Reum did NOT do this).

             

            SECOND. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath, before someone of the courts specified above, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject, which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

             

            THIRD. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such *alien* that he has resided within the United States for at least five years, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least, and that during that time he has behaved as a *MAN*of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and been well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; but the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence. Note: They said MAN, not person, as today’s corporate R.I.C.O. statues do not mention MAN.*

             

            * ***This statute was only amended once. By the act of May 26, 1824, (4: star. 69, c. 186, 1; Rev. St. § 2167,) it removed the two year limit that was provided (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, 1; Rev. St. 2165 provided. The TERM of their law for *Man is NONRESIDENT ALIEN*.This is correct, but they used this term knowing everyone would say “I ain’t no Alien.”

             

            Whiting, the solicitor general, stated in 1864, “An alien owes no allegiance or obedience to our government, or to our constitution, laws, or proclamations. A citizen subject is bound to obey them all. In refusing such obedience, he is guilty of crime against his country, and finds in the law of nations no justification for disobedience. An alien, being under no such obligation, is justified in refusing such obedience. Over an alien enemy, our government can make no constitution, law, or proclamations of obligatory force, because our laws bind only our own subjects, and have no extra-territorial jurisdiction.”

             

            “Over citizens who are subjects of this government, even if they have so far repudiated their duties as to become enemies, our constitution, statutes, and proclamations are the supreme law of the land. The fact that their enforcement is resisted does not make them void. It is not in the power of armed subjects of the ‘Union’ to repeal or legally nullify our constitution, laws, or other governmental acts.”

             

            SOURCE: The Legal Classics Library War Powers under The Constitution of the United States1864 tenth Ed Entered by Act of Congress in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts Special Edition 1997. REMEMBER - WE WERE SUBJECTS BEFORE THE 1776 WAR WHICH WE LOST and became citizen SUBJECTS AFTER the 1783 peace treaty where the King dictated to the United States exactly what he wanted, thereby leaving his subjects to become his

             

            Call me at: 720-675-7230

            On Skype: legalbear

            Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

            Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

            tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

            My blog: legalbearsblog.com

            Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

            (formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

             

          • Legalbear
            I was looking for the Reum decision online and came across this most amazing sequence of letters by
            Message 6 of 8 , Dec 28, 2012
            • 0 Attachment

              I was looking for the Reum decision online and came across this most amazing sequence of letters by Paul Andrew Mitchell on the issue of the IRS/Feds etc. forcing a status on us that is contrary to our interests.

               

              Call me at: 720-675-7230

              On Skype: legalbear

              Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

              Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

              tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

              My blog: legalbearsblog.com

              Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

              (formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

               

            • Mike
              Very interesting.  First of all I already knew I was an alien to the United States.  What is particularly powerful is that anyone who thinks they are a U.S.
              Message 7 of 8 , Dec 28, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Very interesting. 

                First of all I already knew I was an alien to the United States. 

                What is particularly powerful is that anyone who thinks they are a "U.S. citizen" WITHOUT going through this process is committing fraud (or delusional), if I am understanding this correctly.

                So someone who applies for a job, say a police officer, who declares himself a U.S. citizen is committing fraud. His testimony is USELESS and he should be arrested!

                Someone who serves on a jury, or fills out a voter registration checking off that little box that says "U.S. citizen" is committing fraud.

                This is powerful GOOD NEWS! So good, I can hardly believe it! I will be double checking these citations.

                I tried to attach two articles. For some reason my web-based mail will not let me do it right now. One is the complete text of this article. A second is one I located doing a search for 2 Stat. 153, c. 28, 1; Rev. St. 2165, both are from the Informer.

                Here are links instead:



                Thank you Hobot for pointing this direction!

                Michael
                 
                Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.

                From: Legalbear <bear@...>
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 3:03 PM
                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Warning: wife abusing, counterfeiting, terrorist on the loose

                 
                >> snipped
              • Mike
                I agreed to follow up on this subject as soon as I got the chance. ... The statute in this article is outdated. There have been several revisions to the
                Message 8 of 8 , Jan 1, 2013
                I agreed to follow up on this subject as soon as I got the chance.

                Here is what I learned:

                >http://www.scribd.com/doc/65995001/Are-You-a-Citizen-by-Choice-or-by-Presumption-Good

                The statute in this article is outdated. There have been several revisions to the "Immigration and Naturalization Act" as it applies to "persons" who have been born "in the United States". I believe these changes have much to do with: 

                1.) the definition of "the United States" and the "states" as territories of the "United States" rather than independent Nations under international law.

                The Organic Laws of the U.S. recognized the States as independent Nations united under an international agreement called "The Constitution for the United States".

                In 1861 the Congress for the U.S. was adjourned sine die. See: "adjournsinedie" attached. The "United States of America" ceased to exist at that moment.

                A new congress was called by "President" Lincoln. He could not be lawfully be called President, because the de jure government ceased to exist. 

                Lincoln formed a new "United States". This government is de factoSee: "Which US July 4 Are you celebrating" attached.

                Why do you think he called this new congress (the Confederate States were absent) to assemble on July 4, 1861?

                To add insult to injury, Rump legislators forced "the fourteenth Amendment" into the new "Constitution of the United States" and upon the people who inhabit the territories of the new "United States" in 1868, three years after hostilities ceased from the War of Northern Aggression.

                The Supreme Court is cognizant of these changes and its opinions have reflected this change of government since its inception of the new United States.

                A correct view of history does wonders when one reads the law and relevant court opinions.

                To research the "Immigration and Naturalization Act" I went to a local law library.

                Using Westlaw, one can find that some decisions of that court have been contested. The opinions that are contested the most receive a "red flag". Opinions that receive some contest receive a "yellow flag". Opinions that receive little contest receive a green flag. 

                Most recent opinions regarding "Immigration" receive a  a "yellow" or "red flag". An example of a "red flag" would be the recent Arizona decision.

                In that decision, the Supreme Court PROTECTED de jure citizens from deportation to other countries. The same is true for "Obamacare". In that decision, the Supreme Court PROTECTED de jure citizens from being required to participate. When de jure State Nationals assert their Rights as "alien to the United States" they have CORRECTLY asserted their rights. 

                I found that United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 654 (Supreme Court 1898) has a green flag. I believe this means this opinion can be relied on to correctly interpret citizenship in "the U.S.". Read this case carefully and MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND IT!

                2.) Publick edumacation has indoctrinated most "persons" into complete misunderstanding of the law. It should. "Public education" is one of the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto.

                Here is a test to confirm how well "persons" are indoctrinated: Ask a "person" if he/she is in the United States right now. The indoctrinated will say "yes". These persons have little knowledge of the law. Ask that same "person" if he/she was born in the U.S.. The indoctrinated will say "yes".

                This person can waive his/her States/Natural Rights by simply applying for a U.S. Passport at a U.S. Post Office.

                A man/woman who wishes to receive a Passport as a State National (de jure political status) has to apply directly to the State Department and they have the supply the "burden of proof".

                I called the State Dept. February, last year to request an interview to receive a Passport as a State National. The initial "person" I spoke to referred me to the Post Office. I told them that I was not a U.S. citizen and wanted a Passport as a State National that is (was) described in the regulations. This person had no idea what I was talking about and referred me to her superior, who was an attorney. This attorney refused to answer my call or return my telephone calls. In hindsight, I wish I had continued to press the issue. In May of last year, they changed the regulations to include the requirement of "burden of proof".

                I believe "burden of proof" requires fighting in court and getting a judge to affirm your political status as a State National in the same way, but opposite: you had to get a judge to affirm your "U.S. citizenship" as described in the Informers document.

                The most recent revision to the "Immigration and Nationality Act" is P.L. 82–414, Approved June 27, 1952 (66 Stat. 163)


                Welcome to the Rabbit Hole. I hope this helps.

                Michael
                 
                Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.

                From: Mike <micflah@...>
                To: "tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com" <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:07 AM
                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Warning: wife abusing, counterfeiting, terrorist on the loose

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