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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.