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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Warning: wife abusing, counterfeiting, terrorist on the loose

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Dec 26, 2012
    View Source
    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 2 of 8 , Dec 26, 2012
    View Source
    • 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 3 of 8 , Dec 26, 2012
      View Source
      • 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 4 of 8 , Dec 28, 2012
        View Source
        • 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 5 of 8 , Dec 28, 2012
          View Source
          • 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 6 of 8 , Dec 28, 2012
            View Source
            • 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 7 of 8 , Jan 1, 2013
              View Source
              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.