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

Re: Kelly and Mel. If you were born here then you are a citizen.

Expand Messages
  • Jah Red
    that is if you except that the 14th amendment was properly ratified, which it wasn t.. the Supreme court has never ruled as to the validity of the ratification
    Message 1 of 20 , Oct 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      that is if you except that the 14th amendment was properly ratified,
      which it wasn't..

      the Supreme court has never ruled as to the validity of the
      ratification of the 14th...

      i suggest you read:
      Congressional Record.
      Senate, 84th Con. 1st Session., Vol. 101, pp. 7119 to 7124;
      Senate, 86th Con., 2nd Session., Vol. 106, pp. 4036 to 4038;
      Senate, 89th Con., 1st Session., Vol. III, pp. 10669 to 10671.


      this may point out the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment

      http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html


      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Attorney Douglas Palaschak"
      <lawyerdude1989@y...> wrote:
      >
      > It is spelled out in the 14th amendment:
      > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
      > and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
      > States and of the state wherein they reside.
      >
      > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Roe" <kellyroe@h...>
      wrote:
      >
    • Michae Lee
      Of course, the devil is ALWAYS in the details. As most are aware the Supremes have concluded that there are at least 3 definitions for the TERM United States.
      Message 2 of 20 , Oct 28, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Of course, the devil is ALWAYS in the details. As most
        are aware the Supremes have concluded that there are
        at least 3 definitions for the TERM United States.
        Depends on which one you're talking about I guess,
        right?


        --- Attorney Douglas Palaschak
        <lawyerdude1989@...> wrote:

        > It is spelled out in the 14th amendment:
        > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
        > United States,
        > and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
        > citizens of the United
        > States and of the state wherein they reside.
        >
        > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Roe"
        > <kellyroe@h...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >





        __________________________________
        Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • Kelly Roe
        Yes, and if you believe that citizens applies to everyone than we were made slaves with the passage of the 14th and have no right to complain about our
        Message 3 of 20 , Oct 28, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, and if you believe that citizens applies to everyone than we were made
          slaves with the passage of the 14th and have no right to complain about our
          government one bit. They are our masters.


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Attorney Douglas Palaschak" <lawyerdude1989@...>
          To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:17 PM
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Kelly and Mel. If you were born here then you are
          a citizen.


          > It is spelled out in the 14th amendment:
          > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
          > and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
          > States and of the state wherein they reside.
          >
          > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Roe" <kellyroe@h...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • JOHN INGRESS
          Re: Are you a US citizen? Are you, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of... the federal mafia... etc...? Mel, your analysis is the same I ve been
          Message 4 of 20 , Oct 28, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Re: "Are you a US citizen?
            Are you, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of...
            the federal mafia... etc...?"
            Mel, your analysis is the same I've been learning
            recently, but if I may add, it seems that the 14th
            amenndment also set the gov't up as a corporation, and
            our SSN makes us their property, and our W-4
            identifies us as "businesses" liable for the income
            tax. I'm being garnished (I work for a $B corp as a
            machine operator at mediocre pay but decent benefits)
            and don't have a skill that readily allows me to
            obtain work for cash. So to assert my status as a
            sovereign American National by dissolving my ties to
            Soc Sec, anulling my W-4 and drivers license, at this
            point would risk all, it seems to me. So my question
            is, does Title 28 USC, Sec 3004 require a court order
            prior to levy/garnishment? The question of whether a
            court order is required has been raised here twice
            recently, with no definitive answer. I'd suggest that
            since the judges probably take their oath of office
            with their fingers crossed, the answer is no.
          • jm367
            United States in the 14th amendment has been construed. It means the Union States. Not D.C. Not federal territory or possession. So 14th amendment means
            Message 5 of 20 , Oct 29, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              United States in the 14th amendment has been construed.  It means the Union States.  Not D.C.  Not federal territory or possession.  So 14th amendment means born or naturalized in one of the Union States.

              Where are U.S. citizens born or naturalized ? 


              Michae Lee wrote:

              Of course, the devil is ALWAYS in the details. As most
              are aware the Supremes have concluded that there are
              at least 3 definitions for the TERM United States.
              Depends on which one you're talking about I guess,
              right?


              --- Attorney Douglas Palaschak
              <lawyerdude1989@...> wrote:

              > It is spelled out in the 14th amendment:
              >  Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
              > United States,
              > and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
              > citizens of the United
              > States and of the state wherein they reside.
              >
              > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Roe"
              > <kellyroe@h...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >



                   
                         
              __________________________________
              Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
              http://mail.yahoo.com


            • Marshall Magill
              I was not born in DC so there fore I am not..... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... From: Attorney Douglas Palaschak To:
              Message 6 of 20 , Oct 29, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                I was not born in DC so there fore I am not.....
                 
                 
                and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:17 PM
                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Kelly and Mel. If you were born here then you are a citizen.

                It is spelled out in the 14th amendment:
                Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
                and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
                States and of the state wherein they reside.

                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Roe" <kellyroe@h...> wrote:






              • Nick
                Douglas, That all depends upon TERM of how the United States is defined in the particular act in which you are using it doesn t it? In Aliens and Nationality,
                Message 7 of 20 , Oct 29, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Douglas,

                  That all depends upon TERM of how the United States is defined in the
                  particular act in which you are using it doesn't it?

                  In Aliens and Nationality, the TERM United States is clearly that of
                  the Continental United States plus Alaska, Hawaii and possessions of
                  the US.

                  In title 26, The TERM is clearly different. It Includes the District of
                  Columbia making the title clearly Territorial in nature. And please
                  don't hit me with the tired..."Now you are saying that the US has no
                  right taxing us in the 50 states?" Go back and read Article 1 Section 8.

                  So, Is one a United States Citizen is not because one is born here, but
                  is a matter of law depending on definition when being used in an act.

                  Question: Are you really an Attorney, or are you an Attorney because
                  you did not know this?


                  --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Attorney Douglas Palaschak"
                  <lawyerdude1989@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > It is spelled out in the 14th amendment:
                  > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
                  > and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
                  > States and of the state wherein they reside.
                  >
                  > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Roe" <kellyroe@h...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                • Attorney Douglas Palaschak
                  Marshall Magill, the U.S. is MORE than the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is a result of the exercise of an option in the Constitution. You
                  Message 8 of 20 , Nov 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Marshall Magill, the U.S. is MORE than the District of Columbia.
                    The District of Columbia is a result of the exercise of an option in
                    the Constitution.
                    You were born in one of the 50 states; you are a citizen of the United
                    States.

                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Marshall Magill" <wmmw@k...>
                    wrote: I was not born in DC so there fore I am not..... and subject to
                    the jurisdiction thereof
                  • Attorney Douglas Palaschak
                    The secret to understanding title 26 is to understand the word includes which is defined in title 26. When title 26 says that the term U.S. includes
                    Message 9 of 20 , Nov 3, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The secret to understanding title 26 is to understand the word
                      "includes" which is defined in title 26. When title 26 says that the
                      term "U.S." includes Puerto Rico, it means that the U.S. included
                      Puerto Rico along with the 50 state that everybody knows constitute
                      the U.S.

                      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Nick" <nickster97@y...> wrote:
                      > In title 26, The TERM is clearly different. It Includes the District
                      of Columbia making the title clearly Territorial in nature.
                    • Michae Lee
                      Since United States is defined in various titles as including the 50 states and including the District of Columbia, why can t thay just say it in title 26 if
                      Message 10 of 20 , Nov 4, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Since United States is defined in various titles as
                        including the 50 states and including the District of
                        Columbia, why can't thay just say it in title 26 if it
                        includes both? The fact is, the attorneys who craft
                        legislation know how to define terms to avoid
                        un-constitutionality. This is why in the Title 26
                        definition the 50 states are not mentioned. And, as
                        you say, "everybody knows" they have enough money to
                        pay for the ink to print the "50 states." Surely the
                        devil is in the details.

                        --- Attorney Douglas Palaschak
                        <lawyerdude1989@...> wrote:

                        > The secret to understanding title 26 is to
                        > understand the word
                        > "includes" which is defined in title 26. When title
                        > 26 says that the
                        > term "U.S." includes Puerto Rico, it means that the
                        > U.S. included
                        > Puerto Rico along with the 50 state that everybody
                        > knows constitute
                        > the U.S.
                        >
                        > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Nick"
                        > <nickster97@y...> wrote:
                        > > In title 26, The TERM is clearly different. It
                        > Includes the District
                        > of Columbia making the title clearly Territorial in
                        > nature.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • Mike Gorman
                        Sorry to disappoint you, but the use of the word includes is a word with distinct legal meaning and not that of the common meaning, remember Clinton ...that
                        Message 11 of 20 , Nov 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Sorry to disappoint you, but the use of the word "includes" is a word
                          with distinct legal meaning and not that of the common meaning, remember
                          Clinton "...that depends on the definition of "is". "Includes" as used
                          in the Internal Revenue Code is a word of limitation. Refer to the
                          definition of "includes" in title 26.

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                          [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Attorney Douglas
                          Palaschak
                          Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 10:03 PM
                          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] No Nick, Title 26 defines U.S. as including
                          all 50 states.

                          The secret to understanding title 26 is to understand the word
                          "includes" which is defined in title 26. When title 26 says that the
                          term "U.S." includes Puerto Rico, it means that the U.S. included
                          Puerto Rico along with the 50 state that everybody knows constitute
                          the U.S.

                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Nick" <nickster97@y...> wrote:
                          > In title 26, The TERM is clearly different. It Includes the District
                          of Columbia making the title clearly Territorial in nature.










                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                        • Marshall Magill
                          My first response was my gut reaction and may not have made it past the moderator. it was says you However I still feel it is a valid response and here is
                          Message 12 of 20 , Nov 4, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            My first response was my gut reaction and may not have made it past the moderator. it was "says you" However I still feel it is a valid response and here is why. Sir, I challenge your presumption that I am a citzen of anything. I never contracted with any form of government other than the Republican form which has definately been changed and changed without my consent. Therefore, they, the government of the U. S. disolved itself and we have returned to a state of nature where the law of necessity  is the only law that exists and I remain a sovereign of ONE a flesh and blood living soul on the soil and NO one can tell ME what I am or am not and that certainly includes the likes of your ilk! Do you understand what I mean by that? if not, it has to do with titles of which one is attached to your name.
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 11:57 PM
                            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Marshall Magill, the U.S. is MORE than the District of Columbia.

                            Marshall Magill, the U.S. is MORE than the District of Columbia.
                            The District of Columbia is a result of the exercise of an option in
                            the Constitution.
                            You were born in one of the 50 states; you are a citizen of the United
                            States.

                            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Marshall Magill" <wmmw@k...>
                            wrote: I was not born in DC so there fore I am not..... and subject to
                            the jurisdiction thereof






                          • Steve
                            Mike is exactly right! You don t need to even be an attorney to know this.
                            Message 13 of 20 , Nov 5, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Mike is exactly right! You don't need to even be an attorney to know this.

                              Mike Gorman wrote:

                              >Sorry to disappoint you, but the use of the word "includes" is a word
                              >with distinct legal meaning and not that of the common meaning, remember
                              >
                              >
                            • Gary Cummings
                              It would appear that you are wrong. The definition I have found is as follows: TITLE 26 Subtitle F CHAPTER 79 § 7701 § 7701. Definitions (c) Includes
                              Message 14 of 20 , Nov 5, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                It would appear that you are wrong. The definition I have found is as follows:

                                TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701
                                § 7701. Definitions
                                (c) Includes and including
                                The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.


                                Mike Gorman <mgorman@...> wrote:
                                Sorry to disappoint you, but the use of the word "includes" is a word
                                with distinct legal meaning and not that of the common meaning, remember
                                Clinton "...that depends on the definition of "is". "Includes" as used
                                in the Internal Revenue Code is a word of limitation. Refer to the
                                definition of "includes" in title 26.
                              • Gary Cummings
                                It would appear that you are wrong. The definition I have found is as follows: TITLE 26 Subtitle F CHAPTER 79 § 7701 § 7701. Definitions (c) Includes
                                Message 15 of 20 , Nov 5, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  It would appear that you are wrong. The definition I have found is as follows:
                                   
                                  TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701
                                  § 7701. Definitions
                                  (c) Includes and including
                                  The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

                                  Mike Gorman <mgorman@...> wrote:
                                  Sorry to disappoint you, but the use of the word "includes" is a word
                                  with distinct legal meaning and not that of the common meaning, remember
                                  Clinton "...that depends on the definition of "is". "Includes" as used
                                  in the Internal Revenue Code is a word of limitation. Refer to the
                                  definition of "includes" in title 26.  


                                  Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

                                • Michae Lee
                                  WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM DEFINED means of the same type or kind. In other words, in this instance, Federal territories such as the District of
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Nov 5, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    "WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM DEFINED" means of the
                                    same type or kind. In other words, in this instance,
                                    Federal territories such as the District of Columbia.

                                    --- Gary Cummings <chanse117@...> wrote:

                                    > It would appear that you are wrong. The definition I
                                    > have found is as follows:
                                    >
                                    > TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701
                                    > § 7701. Definitions
                                    > (c) Includes and including
                                    > The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a
                                    > definition contained in this title shall not be
                                    > deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the
                                    > meaning of the term defined.
                                  • Legalbear
                                    The meaning of the term “includes” as used in Title 26 was raised on my Tips and Tricks group. One poster found the definition in the code itself: TITLE 26
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Nov 5, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      The meaning of the term “includes” as used in Title 26 was raised on my Tips and Tricks group. One poster found the definition in the code itself:

                                       

                                      TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701

                                      § 7701. Definitions

                                      (c) Includes and including

                                      The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

                                       

                                      When I saw this string come up I remembered a phrase “ejusdem generis” and I did a search in the U.S. Supreme Court data base and I came up with the attached case Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 55 S. Ct. 50, 293 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1934). In the case the bank had won up through the Circuit Court succeeding in getting each respective court to hold that they did not owe the tax based on the principle of “ejusdem generis.” That principle is explained and discussed in the case itself. What I found more interesting were some of the quotes leading up to the reversal of the lower courts:

                                       

                                      “[21] Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States , supra, was a suit brought to enjoin appellants from continuing an alleged conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in cleaning, dyeing, and otherwise renovating clothes contrary to § 3 of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The defense was that appellants were engaged solely in the performance of labor and service in cleaning, dyeing and renovating wearing apparel, etc., and that this did not constitute "trade" within the meaning of the act. The argument was that since the words "trade or commerce" in § 1 of the act, which dealt with interstate commerce, must be construed not to include a business such as that carried on by appellant, the identical words used in § 3 dealing with restraint of trade or commerce within the District of Columbia should be given the same interpretation. Considering the subject matter of the act, and the scope of the legislative power exercised in the one case as compared with that exercised in the other, we held otherwise. In arriving at the conclusion that the word "trade" as used in § 3 was to be given a broader interpretation than the same word as used in § 1, we considered the history leading up to and accompanying the passage of the Sherman Act, the mischief to be remedied, and other circumstances, and held that Congress intended to exercise all the power it possessed; and since the scope of its power in dealing with the District was more extensive than when dealing with interstate commerce, we gave to the word "trade" its full meaning under § 3, unaffected by the narrower meaning which it might have under § 1. The considerations invoked in that case are equally applicable here.” (emphasis mine)

                                       

                                      Today, there is again, a similar application of this case to taxing statutes; those being subtitle A of Title 26. Again, with respect to Title 26, Congress has two powers; one power over the District of Columbia which is “more extensive” and a more limited power when dealing with the residents of the “several states.” To me, this means that the principles of statutory construction must be harnessed to these same principles; i.e., the Internal Revenue Code must be interpreted in light of the restrictions of the Federal Constitution.

                                       

                                      “To ascertain the meaning of the words of a statute, they may be submitted to the test of all appropriate canons of statutory construction, of which the rule of ejusdem generis is only one.”

                                       

                                      Surely, one of the principles of statutory construction is that a statute may not be construed in a manner that is contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land; i.e., the Constitution.

                                       

                                      “[23] The general object of this act is to put money into the federal treasury; and there is manifest in the reach of its many provisions an intention on the part of Congress to bring about a generous attainment of that object by imposing a tax upon pretty much every sort of income subject to the federal power.

                                       

                                      I included this quote to demonstrate the Supreme Court’s acknowledgement that there are incomes that are not subject to the federal power! There are specific clauses of the Constitution that deal with how Congress may reach the Citizens and residents of the several states; a direct tax is not one of them.

                                       

                                      “[31] In the foregoing discussion, we have not been unmindful of the rule, frequently stated by this court, that taxing acts "are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used," and that doubts are to be resolved against the government and in favor of the taxpayer.”

                                       

                                      Man does this have an effect on the interpretation of “includes!” I wonder when the last time was that a court quoted this in a decision.

                                       

                                      The intention of the lawmaker controls in the construction of taxing acts as it does in the construction of other statutes, and that intention is to be ascertained, not by taking the word or clause in question from its setting and viewing it apart, but by considering it in connection with the context, the general purposes of the statute in which it is found, the occasion and circumstances of its use, and other appropriate tests for the ascertainment of the legislative will.” (emphasis mine)

                                       

                                      Since when did the legislatures set out to pass statutes contrary to the Constitution? When using principles of statutory construction, courts start out with the presumption that the statute is Constitutional. They give the legislatures the benefit of the doubt; they treat them as though they gave due consideration to the provisions of the Constitution before writing and passing legislation. A court would never hold that the legislatures passed legislation with the intent to violate the Constitution.

                                       

                                      “[32] "The rule of strict construction is not violated by permitting the words of a statute to have their full meaning, or the more extended of two meanings. The words are not to be bent one way or the other, but to be taken in the sense which will best manifest the legislative intent. United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 396; United States v. Corbett, 215 U.S. 233, 242." Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz, 273 U.S. 326, 329. The rule of strict construction applies to penal laws, but such laws are not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature; or so applied as to narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of cases which those words, in the sense that the legislature has obviously used them, would comprehend.” (emphasis added)

                                       

                                      Now, to understand the full import of the above quote, insert the word Constitution into the above quote where the words “legislative” and “legislature” appear and you have a quote that reads thus:

                                       

                                      “[32] "The rule of strict construction is not violated by permitting the words of a statute to have their full meaning, or the more extended of two meanings. The words are not to be bent one way or the other, but to be taken in the sense which will best manifest the Constitutional intent. United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 396; United States v. Corbett, 215 U.S. 233, 242." Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz, 273 U.S. 326, 329. The rule of strict construction applies to penal laws, but such laws are not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of the Constitution; or so applied as to narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of cases which those words, in the sense that the Constitution has obviously used them, would comprehend.”

                                       

                                      What this is is an argument for dealing with the expansive interpretation that courts have given the term “includes.” In past decisions they have tried to say that includes adds on to what was said in general previously; includes means everything plus these other things too.

                                       

                                      Those of you who have studied the Constitutional provisions respecting direct and indirect taxes and taxes on privilege may have some specifics to add to this. If you do add to this post, please send your additions directly to me at legalbearatlegalbears.com. Bear    

                                       

                                      PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. 

                                      For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

                                      BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

                                      www.legal-research-video.com
                                      www.legalbears.com
                                      www.freedivorceforms.net
                                      www.irs-armory.com

                                      And, for optimum health:
                                      www.mannapages.com/barrysmith
                                      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
                                      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


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