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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Got A Question?

Expand Messages
  • Balsaman
    You will notice that there is no email address in the From -- Subject lines below for a direct personal return, infra. So I am posting to the group. Try
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
       

      You will notice that there is no email address in the   From -- Subject lines   below for a direct personal return, infra.

       

      So I am posting to the group.

       

       

      Try some of these

       

      U.C.C.  1-207

       

      http://www.worldnewsstand.net/

      http://www.worldnewsstand.net/freedom/ucc4.htm

      http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/links2educate.htm

      http://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html

      http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/starticles/2001/feb/txt/arirs030201-t.htm

      http://www.wealth4freedom.com/wns/truth.htm

      http://www.worldnewsstand.net/best.htm

      http://www.supremelaw.org/

      http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm

      http://www.lifersunion.com/understanding_the_court_system_maintext.htm#Printing

      http://www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/archive/March1999/markferran.htm#EqualProtection

      http://www.givemeliberty.org/

      http://www.wealth4freedom.com/free.html

      http://www.worldnewsstand.net/

      http://www.gamblin.net/webbackups/www.iresist.com/ice/attemptingtosolve.htm

      http://www.gamblin.net/webbackups/www.iresist.com/ice/LibertyYourRight.htm#PART6

      http://www.stopbma.org/

      http://www.michiganmilitia.org/html/carl.html

      http://www.cato.org/

      http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/

      http://www.judicialaccountability.org/

      http://www.citizensjustice.com/index.php

      http://www.clr.org/index.html

      http://www.informed.org/

      http://www.lawreform.net/journal.htm

      http://cltg.org/ CITIZENS   FOR  LIMITED  TAXATION
      http://www.law.com/jsp/newswire_article.jsp?id=1050369429283

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse

      http://www.consumerlaw.org/

      http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htmThe Law by Frederick Bastiat

       

      Regards

      JR
       

      From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of tec_time
      Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:12 PM
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Got A Question?

      If I wanted to sign something but, wanted to protect myself
      from "liablity(s)" what 'phrase' and 'intials' would I put on a
      contract that could leave me liable, otherwise?

      Thank All,
      Phillip "Grench" Gillon

       
       
      U.S. Violates International Law by Mistreating Its Own Citizens
      Bill exempts aliens from California law
      Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity
       
      http://www.state-citizen.org/misc/paren%20patriae.txt
      Parens Patriae....Government as Parent

        " When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary
      for one people to dissolve the political bands which have
      connected them with another................" These are
      the words that started a Revolution propelling several
      English colonies into the nation known as "The United
      States of America."  This new nation was designed to
      function under the law of Nature and Nature's God. The
      people believed they would never again hear the words of
      enslavement, ie; "under the sovereignty of the King." 
      Living under the sovereignty of the King made you the
      King's chattel. He owned you. You were his property. 
      You could own nothing, not even your children. The King
      ruled by divine right. The framers of this new nation
      claimed it was designed to be a government  "of the
      people, by the people, for the people. "Representatives
      of this government were to be elected  by the people,
      not born to power.  And so, in 1776 the  great experiment
      in freedom, known as "The United states of America"  began.

      People from each colony fought in the Great War to enable
      the colony to become a Sovereign Nation State. These
      States then created a new state, designed to exclusively
      serve the several Sovereign Nation States. Under this concept
      the nation of States united was born. Every
      sovereign Nation State joining the Union had a Constitution.
      The newly created state received one as well. It was written
      by the people of the several states  and was titled "The
      constitution for The united States of America." This new
      state was "delegated" 17 authorities by the several states.
      The people never intended that it should over step it's
      delegated authorities.
       
      Some scholars believe the freedom ended before the ink
      was dry on the contract written between the people and
      their new government, "The Constitution." There is some
      question as to exactly where and when the new nation
      faltered. Some say it was in 1789, with the Judiciary
      Act. Others say it was after the Civil War. Still
      others claim it was in 1913 or 1921 or  perhaps in
      1933...History tells us the Supreme Court of the United
      States government claims it was when the Union itself
      was formed.

      In the case New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.;
      New York v. Louisiana and others, (1) it states that:
            "all the rights of the States as independent
      nations were surrendered to the United States. The
      States are not nations, either as between themselves
      or towards foreign nations. They are sovereign within
      their spheres, but their sovereignty stops short of
      nationality. Their political status at home and abroad
      is that of States in the united States. They can neither
      make war nor peace without the consent of the national
      government. Neither can they, except with like consent,
      "enter into any agreement  or compact with another
      State." Art. 1, sec. 10, cl. 3." The relation of one
      of the united States to its citizens is not that of
      an independent sovereign State to its citizens. A
      sovereign State seeking redress of another sovereign
      State on behalf of its citizens can resort to war on refusal,
      which a State cannot do. The state, having been a
      sovereign, with powers to make war, issue letters of
      marque and reprisal, and otherwise to act in a
      belligerent way, resigned these powers into the control
      of the United States, to be held in trust."

      In United  States v. Chamberlin,  (2)  the Supreme Court
      of the United States Decided,  to wit:

      It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound
      by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by
      special and particular words. The most general words
      that can be devised (for example, any person or persons,
      bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least,
      if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his
      rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of
      any particular act, though not named. THE RULE THUS
      SETTLED RESPECTING THE BRITISH CROWN IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE
      TO THIS GOVERNMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN APPLIED FREQUENTLY
      IN THE DIFFERENT STATES, AND PRACTICALLY IN THE FEDERAL
      COURTS. IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SETTLED THAT SO MUCH OF
      THE ROYAL PREROGATIVES AS BELONGED TO THE KING IN HIS
      CAPACITY OF PARENS PATRIAE, OR UNIVERSAL TRUSTEE, ENTERS
      AS MUCH  INTO OUR POLITICAL STATE AS IT DOES INTO THE
      PRINCIPLES OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.

      Under most religious law, the children belong to the
      parents. It is a moral obligation on the part of the
      parents to care for and educate their children in their
      existing social values and morals.

      In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act (3)
      was passed creating birth "registration" or what we now
      know as the "birth certificate."  It was known as the
      "Maternity Act" and was sold to the american people
      as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality,
      protect the health of mothers and infants, and for
      other purposes. One of those other purposes provided for
      the establishment of a federal bureau designed to
      cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its
      operations and expenditures. This can now be seen as the
      first attempt of "government by  appointment," or
      cooperation of state governments to aid the federal
      government in usurping the legislative process of the
      several states as exists today through  the federal
      grant in aid  to the states programs.
       
      Prior to 1921 the records of births and names of
      children were entered into family bibles, as were the
      records of marriages and deaths. These records were
      readily accepted by both the family and the law as
      "official" records.  Since 1921 the american people
      have been registering  the births and names of their
      children with the government of the state  in which
      they are born, even though there is no federal law
      requiring it.  The state claims an interest in every
      child within it's jurisdiction, telling the parents
      that  registering  their child's birth through the birth
      certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the
      united States, thereby making him/her a united states
      citizen. 

      In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials
      charged with the administration of the act.
      (Commonwealth of Massachusetts  v. Mellon, Secretary
      of the Treasury et.al..). (4) The plaintiff, Mrs
      Frothingham, averred that the act was unconstitutional,
      and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield
      sovereign rights reserved by them and not granted the
      federal government, under the Constitution,and that the
      burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the
      several States.  The complaint  stated the  naked
      contention  that Congress has usurped reserved powers
      of the States by the mere enactment of the  statute,
      though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it
      without their consent Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant
      Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of
      Massachusetts.
        To wit:
      The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in
      agencies of the Federal Government powers which are
      almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity
      and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal
      funds for the purposes of the act.

      Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates
      on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be
      imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF
      PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT
      MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE
      THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION,
      are measures to which the people of those States which
      accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing
      which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal
      appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY.
      THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF
      PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.

      The act gives all necessary powers to cooperate with the
      state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence
      it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of
      the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its
      agents to go into the several States and to do those
      acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As
      to what those plans shall provide the final arbiters
      are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS
      CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE
      FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE
      PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND ARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE
      SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE
      POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.

      It was further stated in the complaint that "The
      act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted
      to Congress and usurps the local police power. (5)
      In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that
      there are limits to the power of Congress to pass
      legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers
      expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the
      reserved  powers of the States, and that laws showing
      on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly
      within the  police power of the States will be held to
      be unconstitutional  although they purport to be passed
      in the exercise of some  constitutional power. (6)   
      It went on to state:
           "The act is not made valid by the circumstance that
      federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those
      States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and
      state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to  the
      States by the Constitution. (7)  The act is invalid because
      it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield
      a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to
      give up its share of appropriations under the act. "

           " A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon
      a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional
      right, is null and  void. " (8) "The act is invalid
      because it sets up a system of government by cooperation
      between the Federal Government and certain of the States,
      not provided by the Constitution."

      "Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot
      delegate to the States the power to make laws for the
      United  States." (9)  In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly
      declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the
      then 48 States pledged  the "full faith and credit" of
      their states, including the  citizenry, as collateral
      for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system.
      "Full faith and credit" clause  of Const. U.S. article
      4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such
      faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of
      it's origin.  That foreign statutes are  to have force
      and effect to which they are entitled in home state.
      And that a judgement or record shall  have the same
      faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force
      in other states as it has by law or usage in the
      state from whence taken. Black's Law Dictionary,
      4th Ed. cites omitted.

      Today the federal government "mandates, orders and
      compels" the states to enforce federal jurisdiction
      upon it's citizens/subjects. This author believes the
      federal government draws it's de facto jurisdiction
      for these actions from the "Doctrine of Parens Patriae."
      Patens patriae means literally, "parent of the country."
      It refers traditionally to the role of state as sovereign
      and guardian of persons under legal disability.
      Parens patriae originates from the English common law
      where the King  had a royal prerogative to act as
      guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as infants.

      With the birth registration established, the federal
      government, under the doctrine of parens patriae, had
      the mechanism to take over all the assets of the American
      people and put them into debt into perpetuity.
      Under this doctrine, if one is born with a disability,
      the state, (the sovereign) has the responsibility to
      take care of you. This author believes that the disability
      you are born with is, in fact, the birth itself. I
      believe that when you are born, you are born free,
      a "citizen of the soil," an American National. Parents,
      without full disclosure under law, make application
      for a "birth certificate," thereby making the child a
      citizen of the corporate government known as the United
      States. The government  then turns the new citizen
      into a corporation under the laws of  the state.  The
      birth information is collected by the state and is then
      turned over to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The
      corporation is then placed into a  "trust",  known as
      a "Cestui Que Trust". A cestui que trust is  defined as:
      He who  has a right to a beneficial interest in and out
      of an estate  the legal title to which is vested in
      another; The beneficiary  of another. Cestui que use
      is : He  for whose use and benefit lands or tenements
      are held by another. The cestui que use has  the right
      to receive the profits and benefits of the estate, but
      the legal title and possession, as well the duty of
      defending the same, reside in the other.
       
      The government becomes the Trustee, while the child
      becomes  the beneficiary of  his own trust. Legal title
      to everything the child will ever own is now vested in
      the federal government.  The government then places the
      Trust into the hands of the parents, who are made the
      "guardians." The child may reside in the hands of the
      guardians (parents) until such time as the state claims
      that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The
      state then goes into the home and removes the "trust"
      from the guardians.  At majority, the parents lose their
      guardianship.

      The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The
      child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can
      contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many
      years.  The child itself is the asset of the trust
      established by the birth certificate. "Title" to your
      child is now owned by the state. The state now directs
      the trust corpus and provides "benefits" for the
      beneficiary -- the corpus and beneficiary being one
      and the same -- the citizen -- first as child, then as adult.

      The debt transfers from the death of one corpus to
      the birth of another through the process know as
      "Novation." Novation  is defined as "the substitution of
      a new  contract between  same or different parties; The
      substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing
      one; The substitution of one debtor for another or of one
      creditor for another, whereby the old debt is extinguished.
      This author believes the debt of an individual is
      extinguished at his death, and the same debt is then
      transferred to a new individual when he/she is born
      through the registering of the birth, thereby creating
      a new corpus that will again reside  in the hands of the
      trust.

      Each one of us, including our children, are considered
      assets  of the bankrupt United States which acts as the
      "Debtor in  Possession.". We are now designated by this
      government as  "HUMAN RESOURCES," with new such resources
      being added (born) continually. The bankruptcy is a
      receivership, rather than a discharged bankruptcy. The
      bankruptcy debts are serviced, not paid or discharged.
      The Human Resources service the debt, which continues
      to grow with time.

      The federal government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-
      delegates federal parens patriae authority to the state
      attorney generals.  The attorney generals' can now enforce
      all legislation involving your personal life , the lives
      of your children, and your material assets.

      In today's society the government, through the doctrine
      of parens  patriae, has already instituted it's control
      of our  children through the legislative process. Medical
      treatments are enforced through the court with threats
      of loss of your child if the treatment is challenged. 
      Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusal may result in
      the loss of your child under the guise of "child 
      neglect" (failure to preserve the trust corpus). If
      you spank your child or cause him/her any embarrassment
      or indignities, you are also at risk of having your
      child taken from you under the guise of child abuse
      (damaging the trust corpus).

      Some states have legislation either pending or passed
      to give social workers arrest authority. School nurses
      may now report any suspected child abuse to the proper
      authorities. Warrantless searches of your home are
      tolerated by the courts, all in the name of  safety
      for the child.

      The Sun Sentinel, a Florida news paper, reported on
      March 15, that limits on the ability of divorced parents
      to relocate  when minor children are involved were clarified
      by the Florida Supreme Court. The high court three years
      ago approved a policy favoring relocation requests of
      custodial parents as long as such moves are made in good
      faith for the well being of parents and children. Also,
      the justices ruled at that time, moves cannot be made
      "from a vindictive  desire to interfere with the visitation
      rights of the other  parent."  The right of locomotion 
      is held as an element of  personal liberty.  Restraint
      upon the right of locomotion was a well-known feature of
      slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. A first requisite
      of the right to appropriate the use of another man was to
      become the master of his natural power of motion.  The
      control by government courts (supra) of an individuals'
      freedom of  locomotion  could be construed as a  sign of
      ownership of the individual,  or  slavery .

      It's been reported that in California, early in the year,
      an assembly woman, in regard to education policy, made
      the  statement " the children belong to the STATE. " 
      Parens  Patriae legislation covers every area of your
      personal life. Federal parens patriae legislation can
      be found in Title 15 of the United States Code:
              TITLE 15  Sec. 15h. Applicability of parens
      patriae actions STATUTE-Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f,
      and 15g of this title  shall apply in any State,
      unless such State provides by law for its non
      applicability in such State.

      The primary responsibility of a State is to protect
      it's citizens from the tyranny of the federal government.
      The Federal Constitution claims a citizen can seek
      redress and protection under the 14th Amendment of the
      Federal Constitution for any state legislation that
      brings them an injury by depriving them of a civil right.
      A state may  sue the Federal government for protection
      for it's citizens if federal legislation violates the
      Constitutions  of the several states and brings harm to
      it's citizens. The 14th Amendment did not authorize
      congress to create a code of municipal law for the
      regulation of private rights. Positive rights and
      privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth
      amendment, but they are secured by way  of prohibition
      against state laws and state proceedings  affecting
      those rights and privileges. The amendment was intended
      to provide against state laws, or state action of some
      kind, adverse to the rights of the citizen secured by
      the amendment. Such legislation cannot properly cover
      the whole domain of rights appertaining  to life, liberty
      and property, defining them and providing  for their
      vindication. That would be to establish a code  of
      municipal law regulative of all private rights between
      man and man in society. It would be to make congress
      take  the place of  the state legislatures and to supersede
      them.

      However, the Supreme Court in the above case ruled that:
      A State may not, as parens patriae, institute judicial
      proceedings to protect her citizens (who are no less
      citizens of the United States), from the operation of
      a federal statute upon the ground that, as applied to them,
      it is unconstitutional.

      The parens patriae power has been recognized and exercised
      from time immemorial as being  under the rule of a tyrant.

      Note:  The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but
      parts of it have been found in other legislative acts.
      What this act attempted to do was set up government by
      appointment, run by  bureaucrats with re-delegated authority
      outside of   Constitutional authority, with the ability
      to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional and represents
      taxation without representation. This type of government
      is in place today and  is known as "Regionalism."  The
      federal government couldn't  fool the people in 1921 into
      surrendering their sovereignty,  but in 1933……….
      Footnotes:
      1.  New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New
                  York v. Louisiana and others, 108 U.S.76,
                  27 L. Ed. 656, 2 S. Ct. 176, March 5, 1883.
      2.  United  States v. Chamberlin  219 U.S. 250,
                  55 L. Ed. 204, 31 S.Ct. 155, January 3, 1911
      3.  Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act, Oublic Law 97,
                  67th Congress, Session I, chapter 135.
      4.  Commonwealth of Massachusetts  v. Mellon,
                  Secretary of the Treasury, et al.;
                  Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury
                  et.al.. 262 U.S. 447, 67 L.Ed. 1078, 43 S.  ct.597.
      5.  McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405;
                  United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.
              6.  Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax
                  Case, 259 U.S.20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.
      7.  Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822;
                  4 Elliot's Debates, p.525; Pollard's Lessee 
                  v.Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107
                  U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559;
                  Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223
                  U.S. 390.
      8.  Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co.,
                  232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257
                  U.S. 529.
              9.  In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co.
                  v.  Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of  the Justices,
                  239 Mass. 606.

      Copyright  (c) 1996  Joyce Rosenwald
      For information on how to purchase the research documents
      used in this article contact the author...joyce@...
      For more interesting articles visit my website at:
      http://www.bogue.com  click on 'Grassroots'


       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
    • caligiu5@aol.com
      Nice Post JR However for new information UCC 1-207 has been changed as it has disappeared and reappeared as UCC 1-308 Magic huh, I wonder how that
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Nice Post JR
        However for new  information   UCC 1-207   has been changed as it has disappeared and reappeared as UCC 1-308  Magic huh, I wonder how that happened? 
        FreedomStalker
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.