I received an email today that referenced the U.S. “Domestic Mail Manual” (“DMM). I have a physical copy of that manual because a number of intelligent people believe that use of the mail–and especially things like Zip Codes–can be used as evidence that you are a “person” doing business or otherwise transacting in the territory of “this state”. The people that I know of who’ve studied the “mail” issue rely on an astute reading of the DMM to extricate themselves from liability to the national government.
I haven’t studied that issue, but I understand that the word “domestic” probably implicates the singular “United States” and its territories and may therefore be hazardous to our health.
So, in yet another instance of Why-Didn’t-I-Think-Of-This-Sooner? (like ten or fifteen years ago), when I saw today’s reference to the “Domestic Mail Manual,” it occurred to me that using the Domestic Mail Manual as a legal authority to escape the venue of “this state”–which I suspect may also be described as the “domestic to the United States” venue–might be self-defeating.
I.e, if “this state” is synonymous with the plane/venue of the “domestic” United States, what are the odds that the Domestic Mail Manual will help you to evade the “domestic” venue? Not too high, I’d bet.
Even so, I believe that our entry into the plane or venue of “this state” is always presumed by the gov-co to be voluntary. If anything is voluntary, that implies that there must be a choice between at least two options. For example, if my entry into the territory of “this state” is truly presumed to be voluntary, then I am entitled to choose one of the following: 1) I agree to enter into the plane/venue of “this state”; or 2) I refuse to enter into the plane/venue of “this state”.
Therefore, it’s possible that the Domestic Mail Manual may include information that, closely read, will admit your authority and your “right to choose” to enter into, or stay out of the “domestic” plane or venue served by the Domestic Mail Manual. Thus, the DMM may not only be extremely helpful–but might be the only authority we need to create evidence that we are not “in this state”.
For example, I believe there’s a section in the DMM that expressly applies to and allows “non-domestic” mail. That section (which I do not recall) may be evidence that: 1) we really do have a right to choose to enter into “this state” or to refuse such entrance; and 2) the domestic “United States” may be “this state” while the non-domestic “United States” may refer to the several States of the Union.
But it still crossed my mind that, if the Domestic Mail Manual applies to the territory of “this state,” that there might be another “mail manual” that applies to those beings and entities outside of the “non-domestic” plane/venue of “this state”.
I Googled “Non-Domestic Mail Manual” and found no express reference to that term.
So, what else?
I Googled “Foreign Mail Manual” and found no hits.
So I tried “International Mail Manual”. (After all, if “domestic” applies to that which is within the boundaries of the singular, territorial “United States,” then that which is outside of that “domestic” plane/venue might be viewed as “international”.)
And, Ta-Da!–I received 73,200 “hits” for the “International Mail Manual” (“IMM”)
Google produced a list of all those hits at: https://www.google.com/search?q=International+Mail+Manual&sugexp=chrome,mod=16&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22International+Mail+Manual%22&oq=%22International+Mail+Manual%22&gs_l=serp.3..0l4.58.58.1.1531.1.1.0.0.0.0.299.299.2-1.1.0.les%3B..0.0…1c.1.I9QbjdTXHx0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=8d922e7564b14b7d&biw=1323&bih=653
That list included:
1) A link to the USPS website dealing with the IMM at http://pe.usps.com/text/imm/welcome.htm
2) A link to a the 748-page, USPS “International Mail Manual” (IMM) at: http://pe.usps.com/cpim/ftp/manuals/imm/full/imm.pdf
I haven’t read the IMM. I’ve only skimmed the Table of Contents. But I noticed in that Table that there were U.S. Customs forms that were to be used under certain circumstances when someone outside the (domestic?) United States mailed certain products into the United States. I won’t be surprised to learn that there may also be some required procedures and/or forms that should be used whenever you mail a letter from a foreign country like England, Uganda or Indonesia into the “domestic” United States.
If any such forms or procedures are required for mail emanating from a foreign country, I wonder what would happen if I sent a letter from my venue within The State of Texas (a State of the Union and therefore “foreign” and presumably “non-domestic” to the territorial “United States”) to some other entity (a prosecutor? court? plaintiff?) that is purportedly located “in this state”.
Is it possible that by means of using such forms or procedures for mail from foreign countries in conjunction with mail from The State of Texas that I would enhance and support my claim of acting in the plane/venue outside the “domestic” plane/venue of “this state”?
Conversely, is it possible that by failing to use such forms for “foreign” mail (assuming such forms even exist) that any mail I send–even that which expressly references “The State of Texas”–will still be presumed to be “domestic” and thus subject me to the plane/venue of “this state”?
• Note that we should not try affixing “foreign” forms to our mail until we are sure that such procedure is warranted and lawful. If my conjecture is mistaken, and someone tries attach forms suitable for “foreign” mail to mail sent from within even The State of Texas, we might be risking prosecution for mail fraud. Therefore, this is not a speculative strategy that should be engaged in without a lot of research and preliminary consideration.
More, we might try a strategy implied by this article and find the employees at the Post Office just laugh at us. Maybe this potential strategy is simply more evidence that some of us have our tin-foil hats on a little too tight.
But I don’t mind being laughed at. If someone at the Post Office can prove that all of my conjecture concerning the alternative venue of “this state” is pure malarkey, I will sincerely thank them. All I want in terms of venue is to be recognized as acting within the borders of The State of Texas–a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. If I can be recognized as acting in that plane/venue, I’m a happy camper. I don’t care if I reach that venue by a sophisticated application of some technology based on the International Mail Manual, or if I get there on a wave of official laughter from those in government who declare that the concept of “this state” is silly.
In terms of venue, all I want is to be recognized as acting within a State of the Union. However I get there is cool with me.
All of the previous potential strategy is conjectural. I don’t know when I’ll have time to read enough of the IMM to discover if my conjecture is reasonable or irrational.
But I’m hoping that some of you either already know how to answer my questions, or have enough time on your hands to dig a little deeper into the IMM.
Ben
September 16, 2012 at 1:01 PM
Evidence please …………otherwise I believe it’s foolishness.
James Barnes
September 17, 2012 at 3:31 AM
Well if YOU believe it’s foolishness then go research it YOURSELF. What are the men and women on here, under your executive authority. Listen to everything everyone says (except of course when it comes to utter retardation) and believe nothing unless YOU can verify it with your own research. Be a responsible man, do you own legwork. You obviously have access to the net. Study learn and become knowledgeable yourself. I don’t believe anything I’ve seen Al publish is utter foolishness but he already stated, he’s only recently received these and I’m sure if they interest him he will delve further. The question is what do each of you get out of this, different people see things differently what knowledge can you bring to this table? Personally, I don’t play their corporate games anymore. If I’m not employed by the corporation of McDonalds do I care about their employees rules? If I’m employed without my knowledge and without pay then that’s an obvious fraud and totally and easily destroyed in any venue.
Peace and Love to all of you.
They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me, then they will have my dead body, but not my obedience.
Gandhi
Don
September 17, 2012 at 3:52 PM
To: James Barnes:
Way to go dear Brother,re foolishness. HEY! What happened to your photo,i.e. why is it no longer appearing?
James Barnes
September 18, 2012 at 5:23 AM
Depends on if I’m signing on through facebook or wordpress, that’s all.
Don
September 19, 2012 at 7:23 PM
To:James Barnes,
I did not know that I had to be a computer guru to use one. I am so ignorant,stupid is a better word in knowing how computers work,logging in etc.,it’s pathetic. I hope my question re: your photo did not make you angry. Sometimes a swastika like emblem/icon(?) appears to left of my name when I post a message on this site & why, I have no idea. 99 & 9/10ths of the time the emblem/icon is what has appeared for years.
Lark In Texas
September 16, 2012 at 1:08 PM
http://freedom-school.com/jerry-kirk/appendix/postmaster-uneducated-uncooperative.pdf
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Adask’s law
sem
September 16, 2012 at 9:06 PM
Things that make you go ~~~HMMM~~~.
James Barnes
September 17, 2012 at 3:56 AM
Hmmm I see there are other freedom minded men in the area I live from his homes address. I’m going to have to put out a notice and see whom I can draw into study groups, to further all our knowledge.
James Barnes
September 17, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Already found him, will call and talk to him tomorrow and discuss some things with him less than 20 miles from me, sweet, will be nice to talk with a non insane man :)
aannagolinska
September 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM
http://suijuris.me/suij/index.php/video
sem
September 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM
Whahdahell?
NDT
September 16, 2012 at 2:45 PM
A while ago I wrote to a constable advising him of the defamation arising from referring to me as a person (having an obligation) instead of a man. I hand delivered the letter and subsequently he wasn’t at the hearing and nobody identified me as the person while under oath.
The fact that I hand delivered the letter could be material in that territorial jurisdiction depends on a salutory fear (Bouvier’s dictionary), and by hand delivering the letter it was evident that a salutory fear did not exist.
sem
September 16, 2012 at 9:02 PM
Okay…AND?…
aannagolinska
September 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM
I think Mary E. Croft exercised this idea. You may sk her directely: lovelaughlearn22@gmail.com
sem
September 16, 2012 at 9:07 PM
No comment.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 3:15 PM
I have posted this several times & got no responses But I ask of you or anyone else this. What is the purpose of the two provisions below? I use my mailing location followed by that showing below.
Zip Code Exempt per Public Law 91-375,Section 403 (b) (2) (c), Domestic Mail Services-122.32., Re: Zip Code Use .
sem
September 16, 2012 at 9:00 PM
If there is no answer … the answer is NO.
Don
September 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM
SEM
What is the purpose of “Public Law 91-375,Section 403 (b) (2) (c), AND, Domestic Mail Services-122.32, in your learned in statutory law opinion? I have to hand it to you, you’re not just smart you are REAL SMART & that’s an understatement.
Don
September 17, 2012 at 3:57 PM
Hey SEM=IRAMIS
Take a LONG RUN off a SHORT DOCK !!
Anon4fun
September 17, 2012 at 4:14 PM
Looks like sem took a drive in commerce and kept going ‘til he was clear off the reservation. Am I right, Don? ;)
palani
September 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM
In 1857 Iowa held a convention to come up with a new constitution. They published a 2 volume set of the proceedings. On a couple of pages they actually discussed the problem of obtaining service upon people who might flee to a federal zone within the state. They ended up concluding that, as other states were not concerned with the same problem, that they need not come up with a remedy.
Think about it. At this time there COULD be a federal zone (aka “this state”) over the entire state and the state cannot obtain service on you should you be in it. On the other hand if you are in the constitutional state then quite possibly the feds cannot obtain service on you.
sem
September 16, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Palani:
You may want to review the Landmark Decision – International Shoe `vs` Washington. Things have changed in the game…baby.
PeaceOut
palani
September 17, 2012 at 7:29 AM
@sem
Things that are similar are not the same. International Shoe had employees who WERE resident in the State of Washington. Not close in any way to the situation I describe.
How does Panama gain service of process upon someone in Columbia? How can anyone be forced to follow the rules of a body politic of which he is not a member? I’ll put it simply. How can the Brownies completely ignore the rules and by-laws of the Boy Scouts of America with impunity?
Don
September 16, 2012 at 3:42 PM
The City Police have come 15 miles outside the city limits & arrested me,in my,at the time,home. I have been arrested inside the city limits by State police AND Sheriff deputies. By the way,what is the purpose of the “State” police?
sem
September 16, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Police is Police IDIOT! (It’s the same kind of bullet).
Don
September 17, 2012 at 1:51 PM
To;SEM
WOW!! You are the “smartest” INDIVIDUAL on this site. You have forced me to conclude that “sem” is really a short term of/for SEMIRAMIS, QUEEN OF BABYLON. Babylon itself means “confusion” & I know who the author of confusion is. IT was a JURISDICTION issue I was referring to, SMARTASS. You’re smart but you were not smart enough to answer it. You have a rude & crude way of avoiding questions. You need to become a member of the “Quatloos” INDIVIDUALS.
Virginia
September 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM
I wonder if general post is going to be the way to go? Maybe they go by the presumption that since YOU are receiving a benefit by having your “mail” delivered to you, that you are volunteering to be in their zone? I love what brother Jerry Kirk sent them! I usually write out my address as:
Christian name (1st and middle only)
c/o nation: Texas
Post Road: one two three Free street
Town: Freedom
non-domestic, non-resident, non-Corp. US
Any other ways some could share?
palani
September 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM
where the zip code goes … “close to but not in (zip)”
Don
September 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM
In other words,using what is showing below is useless,& a waste of time,right?
Zip Code Exempt per Public Law 91-375,Section 403 (b) (2) (c), Domestic Mail Services-122.32., Re: Zip Code Use.
I don’t want to share this with Virginia if it is worthless.
sem
September 16, 2012 at 9:08 PM
~~HMMM~~
Don
September 20, 2012 at 10:22 PM
Palani wins again
where the zip code goes … “close to but not in (zip)”
Excellent idea. You are the Master
Adask
September 16, 2012 at 4:45 PM
I’m inclined to view most “alternative” addresses as premises/evidence in a legal argument. You might make one argument, I might make another. The evidence supporting your argument and the evidence supporting mine may be much different. But the conclusion in both your argument and mine is that we are each operating in a plane or venue other than “this state”.
The premises I currently prefer are these:
Alfred Adask
c/o 2921 Robin Hill Lane
The City of Garland
The County of Dallas
The State of Texas
The United States of America
I am serving notice with every envelope I send that I am acting within the perpetual Union created by our Articles of Confederation in A.D. 1781. Who would argue on the record, in front of a jury, and under oath . . . that I am not?
Your return address/ premises/ argument may be better than mine, but I’m familiar with mine and able to argue it with some expertise.
All of these strategies are like different versions of martial law. I might be a boxer. You favor karate. If you’re good at karate, you can probably beat me. But if you’re weak in your chosen martial art, and I’m a particularly good boxer, I can clean your clock. But just because one of us is particularly good at our chosen “martial art” is no reason for others to simply copy you or me. Each of us has to fight with particular “martial art” that we understand. If I were to give up boxing to simply copy your karate, I’d probably get creamed. You must fight with the martial art that you currently know best.
sem
September 16, 2012 at 8:06 PM
That last paragraph is particularly ‘On point’!
PeaceOut
PS you gotta know when to hold them; know when to fold them; know when to walk away, and know when to run.
Ben
September 16, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Mr. Adask, Did you not err by using the “preferred” address? Should it not be;
Alfred Adask
2921 Robin Hill Lane
Garland
Dallas County
Texas, America
pop de adam
September 20, 2012 at 6:26 AM
Assumption you make it your own by addmission.
Presumption you make it your own by addmision.
I would be wary of affirmative defences.
What other animal is encumbered by such “encumbrances”?
Don
September 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Alfred,
Isn’t there a better word to use, than “acting?” The attorneys are “practicing & we are acting.”
Adask
September 20, 2012 at 12:00 PM
I don’t know. Probably. But your question has so few details that it’s impossible for me to answer. But this occurs to me: We we “act” the result is a “fact” that’s admissible as evidence. But I wonder if we create admissible “facts” when we merely “practice”. If we knew the difference in the meanings in “act” and “practice” we might learn that it would be better to describe some of our behavior as “practicing” rather than “acting”.
Don
September 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM
NDT
You say: “If you can learn to say exactly what you mean, you may be able to keep “this state” at bay.”
Is your statement directed to anyone in particular or to everyone in general?
I try to say what I mean & mean what I say,so if your statement above is meant exclusively for me, do you have any suggestions as to what I can do to make make my messages/posts,etc.clearer?
Adask
September 22, 2012 at 3:21 PM
The statement is a general observation. It’s not necessary that you speak exactly as I speak, or even exactly as the judge speaks. But is necessary that you truly understand what you’re saying to the point that you can more fully explain whatever ideas or authorities you’re trying to present. You cannot merely copy someone else’s words. The words you copy may be brilliant, but as soon as the prosecutor or judge ask you a few questions about those words, they will know from your answers if they are truly “your” words or merely something you’ve copied. If you’re only copying the words that you hope will save you, you will probably be convicted.
How do you prove that you “really understand” the words you’ve used? Perhaps by using questions. If the judge or prosecutor asks you a question about some “powerful” words that you’ve used and you can respond with a question to the court asking that he clarify his intended meaning, I think they might begin to sense that you are “competent” to know what what you’re saying.
I.e., if the judge asked you whether you are a “citizen of the United States” and you replied by asking the judge to define “which” “United States” he was referring to: the singular U.S. seen in the 14th Amendment, the plural (several) “United States” seen at specific places in the body of the Constitution and the 13th Amendment, or some “territorial” United States” or maybe some other kind of “United States”–you’d put the court in a very unpleasant position.
I believe the “system” relies on ambiguity (using a word to mean one thing when they know the person they’re talking to will presume the word means something else). If they ask a question like “Do you understand the charges?” and you respond, “Can you define the meaning you’re using for “understand”? Do you mean “comprehend” in an intellectual sense? Or do you mean “agree to” in a contractual sense?”–they’ve got a problem.
It seems fundamental that you are entitled to know the meaning of any question before you can answer. Insofar as the meaning of any question will depend on the meaning(s) of one or more key words in that sentence, you should be able to ask for clarification/definition of any word or phrase before you answer a question. If that’s true–and I think it must be–then once you begin to skillfully respond to their questions with your own questions rather than your own simple answers–I think the court is going to know that they’ve got a problem. In essence, you can’t answer anyone’s questions (especially under oath) unless you fully comprehend the meanings of each of those questions.
If they won’t explain the meanings of the key words they’re using (and only a small percentage of words carry a single definition, so there’s always ambiguity), it seems to me that you might have a very strong line of defense. I.e., most current prosecutions depend on the defendant to make certain express or implied admissions. If you can’t answer the questions, you can’t witness against yourself–even if you’re on the witness stand. “Out of the mouths of two or three shall a thing be established.” I strongly suspect that many, probably most, prosecutions rely on the defendant to be the unwitting “second witness” required to convict him of an alleged offense. If you can’t testify because you don’t understand the meanings of the words the prosecutor uses, and the prosecutor refuses (or is unable) to define his terms, it would seem that you can’t be the “second witness” they may need to make their case.
You won’t be allowed to get away with just asking “Why daddy, why daddy, why daddy?” You won’t be allowed to get away with asking the court to define every word in every question. (“How do you define your use of the word “the,” your Honor?”) But if you can anticipate key words or phrases like “United States” or “drugs” or “drivers license” that are likely to come up in your case, and if you know–you really know–the several definitions for those key words as found in some other source that might be deemed as relevant or having authority. Point to a definition in any US Title or some edition of Black’s Law Dictionary. It’s not necessary that your definitions be authoritative and absolute. Instead, you need only show evidence that reasonable people admit that there are more than one definition and meaning for the word in question. Once you’ve established that the word in question has more than one meaning, then it’s absolutely reasonable that the prosecutor or judge provide the definition(s) of the word(s) he’s using.
More, you don’t need to restrict your “counter-questions” to definitions. You could also ask about things like venue.
For example, when the prosecutor asks “On or about March 16th, did you drive without a drivers license?,” you might ask “Do you mean, Did I drive without a drivers license within the borders of The State of Texas? Or do you mean, Did I drive without a drivers license within the venue of a territory?” If the prosecutor has to admit or deny the venue or place where each of your alleged acts took place was within the borders of a State of the Union on in a territory, I don’t think he’ll want to address that question. If the prosecutor won’t admit or deny the place where the alleged events took place, he may alienate the jury and may also provide a basis for appeal.
All this conjecture is easy to say and hard to do. You can’t get so carried away with your questions that you sound like a nut to the jury. But if your questions are reasonable and adequately supported, you might be able to put the prosecution on the defensive every time they ask a question. If you’re adept at presenting such questions, you might be able to stop or even win the proceedings.
palani
September 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM
I know of a guy who had a search warrant executed on his house. What was being searched for? Evidence that he received mail and how he received mail. This was based upon arguments he was raising in court. As a 32nd degree Mason he was informed in court “Brother, we are straying” by the stand he was taking.
sem
September 16, 2012 at 9:32 PM
PostalPolice do not need a warrant!
Don
September 17, 2012 at 3:34 PM
What’s wrong with straying by a stand? There are lots of stray dogs. This is a “sem” mentality question & statement.
aannagolinska
September 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM
Following you comments I have discovered principal reason why we are locked in this digital grid of Zip Codes: The answer is: so they have control over money transfers! Zip Code system is yet another banking operation. They don’t give a blank about the letter from your Mather!
It looks like Post Master General Office is older then USA, however it ended in 1971. Why?
Back In 1971, the Post Office Department was re-organized into the United States Postal Service, a special agency independent of the executive branch. Thus, the Postmaster General is no longer a member of the Cabinet and is no longer in Presidential succession.
What happened in 1971? “In an attempt to control inflation President Richard M. Nixon implements 90 day freeze on wages and prices, he also removed the gold/silver backing from the US Dollar “and also very rapid development of computer technology.
It looks like this was further step to perfecting control over digital person.
It is hard to imagine all this without computers. Sorry, no escape from the zip code other the spiritual!
sem
September 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM
It’s as simple as what he said.
Don
September 17, 2012 at 3:47 PM
aannagolinska
Maybe you will respond to this question.No one else will. what is the purpose of:
Public Law 91-375,Section 403 (b) (2) (c), Domestic Mail Services-122.32
I use the foregoing after my “physical address,” as follows.
Zip Code Exempt per Public Law 91-375,Section 403 (b) (2) (c), Domestic Mail Services-122.32., Re: Zip Code Use .
Don
September 19, 2012 at 3:28 AM
Hello, aannagolinska
I am CONVINCED that the Zip Code IS a “Federal Regional Military VENUE Identifier.” So IS TX, NM,AZ, VA,OR, WA, etc.
Back in ths late sixties I lived on Rush Street in Chicago, Illinois.I still have mail in my possession that was sent to me from different places in & out of Illinois & none of it contains a Zip Code. We are told today that the Post Office cannot deliver mail unless it contains a Zip Ccde. BS !! How & why was it delivered BEFORE without a Zip Code? Chicago was & still is a “dense area.” NO ONE who lived in Chicago back in the sixties received mail with a Zip Code.Talk to anyone on any street
you live on & everyone receives mail with the SAME Zip Code. I received a package last week sent from Oregon & received it 2 days after it was sent. It did not have a Zip Code. I have received mail sent from the same city in Oregon with a Zip Code & receive it a week after it is sent. Zip Codes are not for zippity do dah purposes.
Jethro
September 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM
In my Declaration that I have made public notice, I declared that any and all mail I may receive or send is, at all times, received in, or sent from, only The United States of America (defined as that which was created by the Articles of Confederation). So far, nobody has objected.
sem
September 16, 2012 at 8:13 PM
Jethro:
I bet the farm that you can also Cipher, as well.
Jethro
September 16, 2012 at 11:32 PM
Yes, it’s usually an F#. Irritating.
Don
September 19, 2012 at 3:32 AM
Hi Jethro,
What method did you use to make your Declaration a “Public Notice?” I know there are several ways to do it, just curious as to which method you used.
Jethro
September 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM
Don,
I used a similar method to the Dennis Craig documents that are posted here on Al’s blog. I did NOT copy them (mine were actually a bit different), but I similarly got two witnesses and a notary to sign them, then recorded them, then served certified copies upon a U.S. embassy in another country.
Don
September 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM
TO:Jethro
Re: your “similar method to the Dennis Craig documents.”
Who did you send them to,or what did you do with the “documents” after you completed the “information” in them?
aannagolinska
September 16, 2012 at 5:55 PM
The Universal Postal Union (UPU, French: Union postale universelle) is a specialized agency of the United Nations that coordinates postal policies among member nations, in addition to the worldwide postal system. USA is a member since 1975.
It was established in 1874.
sem
September 16, 2012 at 8:46 PM
The United States Postal Service is not a “joke”; them folk mean business. If anyone is thinking of committing a crime…DO NOT DO IT VIA MAIL OR OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION!
Them ‘Boyz’ don’t play!
I receive my mail (whether solicited or not) on time and in order; no one is twisting my arm to go to the mailbox and take out the mail. In fact, if I don’t take out the mail; Postal Service will take it out for me and hold it at the Post Office.
I am joyful of the services provided by the USPS (which is not to say that readily I accept Registered Mail) inasmuch as I feel assured that the services paid for, will be rendered.
Perhaps, that goes to the subject point…NOTICE!
Hence, if you are to be notified, indeed, you will receive the NOTICE. And don’t even try to deny receiving it, (the Courts are well prepared for that) you will be made into a fool.
There is much ado concerning the welfare of the USPS (I am not affiliated) well, considering the significance of NOTICE (the ‘nuecleus’ of Due Process) the balance does not favor concern.
PeaceOut
applescence
September 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM
Afred, if I may ask a question concerning your “address, “: I keep seeing you refer to the State of Texas, City of Garland, County of….etc. When I have looked up CAFRs here in California, looking to see if various jurisdictions I may be travelling through (no drivers license/contract or registration plates/contract with the STATE OF CALIFORNIA), I usually find Cityof… and County of….are the corporations filing CAFRs, and the original counties (Shasta County, Siskyou County, for example do not file CAFRs (not involved in commerce per Clearfield Doctrine). Same seems to go for cities. Whenever I see “City of Santa Rosa”, I can almost always go back and find the original city as Santa Rosa, prior to being involved in commerce. Here California was the California Republic, as I believe Texas was the Texas Republic(?) prior to being the State of Texas. Does the addresses you use denote the non-govco location, as opposed to the “political subdivision of the United States”? Sometimes this part is a bit more challenging to figure out.
Thank you! you guys are constant eye openers!
Jethro
September 16, 2012 at 11:39 PM
It would seem as though as long as you define your terms, you could use whatever term you want to describe your situs. Though for the purposes of disambiguation, I’d avoid using the same terms that “this state” uses.
Don
September 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM
Hi Jethro,
Re: I’d avoid using the same terms that “this state” uses.
We can avoid it,but to no avail,at least that has been my experience,e.g. in essence let’s say you
put in your “petition,”etc. that you have an unalienable right to do so & so. The courts say: Jethro,
claims to have an inalienable right to do so & so. You,e.g. use “In The District Court of the United
States,& your petition is in propria persona. Then, the next thing you know, it’s “United States
District Court, petitioner appearing pro se, & on & on, they convert EVERYTHING you do into what they want it to be.
Jethro
September 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Don, why not ask them why they changed it? Perhaps something in the nature of a motion for a finding as to why they changed YOUR documents, YOUR court and YOUR caption would be in order. Let them do the explaining. Or… as part of your complaint or initial filing as a condition of its filing, include that no portion of your caption, court, etc. may be changed without a full explanation (including identification and definitions of all “terms of art”) as to why it was changed. You may also state that another court (of your choosing) will have jurisdiction to litigate the matter if necessary.
Don
September 19, 2012 at 8:31 PM
Once again, they convert EVERYTHING you do into what they want it to be.
How much “personal experience” have you had in actual “Court matters,etc.?” OR, how many times have you petitioned ANY “court/tribulal” for a redress of grievance? IF it is a “Federal Court, your petition will be converted into a “Title 42 civil rights violation “suit” Even tho you let the Clerk & Court know at its inception that your petition IS NOT to be construed as a Title 42 civil rights petition,etc.”
Robert Bork answers as to why. Many many years ago he said:
We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.”
Did you catch it? APPLYING NO WILL BUT THEIR OWN.” No!!! they are not accountable!! They have self appointed “sovereign immunity” & many other self appointed “immunities.” And,as one court said before the merger of law & equity had “merged MORE: “Immunity fosters neglect & breeds irresponsibility while liability promotes caution & care.”
Jethro
September 19, 2012 at 9:53 PM
Don, again… have you *asked* them (formally) why they changed it, and by what authority they changed it? It may be they are /presuming/ a host of things and thus they’re “helping” you by “fixing” your pleading so it’s now “correct”. But you won’t know until you ask. If they refuse to answer, now you have a whole new issue to address with them – that could take years to resolve.
I have had a good bit of court experience — one case made national news within my industry. At the same time, I do not claim to be any sort of court expert. But I am beginning to think and act like one of “We the People” which means we question our purported “servants”, even if that means getting testy with them.
Adask
September 16, 2012 at 11:44 PM
I might’ve casually referred to “the State of Texas” a time or two, but if I did, it was a mistake. I typically intend and write “The State of Texas” (which is the proper name of the State of the Union readmitted back into representation in Congress after the Civil War by the Act of March 30th, A.D. 1870.
Similarly, the proper name for this nation is found in quotes in the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781: “The United States of America”.
I do not admit to living in “Garland,” but I will admit to being located within “The City of Garland”.
I do not confess to living the venue of “Dallas county” or “Dallas County” or “the county of Dallas”. I live within the venue of The County of Dallas.
Law is largely a word game like “Simon Says” or “Mother May I?”. If you can learn to say exactly what you mean, you may be able to keep “this state” at bay.
NDT
September 18, 2012 at 4:03 PM
“If you can learn to say exactly what you mean, you may be able to keep “this state” at bay.”
In commerce, the truth is sovereign. But if your statement is ambiguous, it can be interpreted against your interests (contra proferentem). For example, freedom of speech can refer to speaking the truth or to slandering someone. If I say that I advocate freedom of speech, my statement can be interpreted against me as advocacy of defamation.
Don
September 20, 2012 at 7:12 AM
applesence,
It seems that, what is accepted/valid today,is/becomes invalid somewhere down the line.As far as “mailing locations” the following as far as I’m concerned, is sufficient as far as an “address” goes. I am “making up” the name & address.
Allen Curtis Johnson
c/o 777 Center Street
Perryton,Ochilltree county,Texas
One time a Judge asked me: “How would you like to be “addressed?” Think about that question! I think it is a fair,sensible & IMPORTANT question & that was one time I knew how & what to say/answer.
Anon4fun
September 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM
I wonder how the USPS would handle it if you put up a notice that your mailbox is in the State, not this state. Advanced users can add something to the effect that no one with the all-caps equivalent of your name is at this address, therefore all such mail should return to sender.
Adask
September 16, 2012 at 11:54 PM
You have to be very cautious about doing anything to “your” mail box. Chances are, that mail box belongs to the USPS and if you do anything to modify it, you might be risking some civil or criminal liability. I won’t say I expect to see that kind of liability, but it wouldn’t surprise me, either. Check the law before you mess with the mail box.
Anon4fun
September 17, 2012 at 12:36 AM
That’s a new one on me. Kinda like the days when the phone company owned your telephone. Around these parts, someone’s mailbox is a fixture of their property and never belongs to the USPS.
Adask
September 17, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Perhaps I have “misremembered”. I just looked at the Mail Box in front the house where I live. On the door it says “U.S. Mail” and “Approved By the Postmaster General”. It does not say “Property of the U.S.P.S.” or some such. Still, insofar as the words “U.S. Mail” appear on the door, it is arguable that the box itself has a legal status that is protected by federal law as a “receptacle” for the U.S. Mail. Who owns the “receptacles” for U.S. Mail? The homeowner or the U.S. gov-co? If it’s true that the Mail Boxes are protected by federal law, it’s at least doubtful that those Mail Boxes are pure, private property of the homeowner.
Anon4fun
September 17, 2012 at 7:30 AM
Anyone concerned about messing with property of the USPS can post their “this address is in the State, not this state” notice in the immediate vicinity without blocking or touching the mailbox.
Don
October 5, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Alfred, my friend,
re your message>You have to be very cautious about doing anything to “your” mail box. Chances are, that mail box belongs to the USPS and if you do anything to modify it, you might be risking some civil or criminal liability. I won’t say I expect to see that kind of liability, but it wouldn’t surprise me, either. Check the law before you mess with the mail box.
What law do I check on to try & understand why the USPS will not deliver a USPS money order or at least return the envelope the USPS money order was sent in back to me? Is it because the envelope does not have a zip code for either mailing location? The USPS Clerk refused to register & send the letter via “return receipt requested” because of no zip codes. Also, I did not need to show any kind of ID when I purchased the money order but now I am “advised” that I have to have 2 government issued picture ID’s along with the receipt (which I have) before they will put a tracer on the “sent money order.” Once again, I did not have to have ANY government issued picture ID to purchase the USPS money order & my made a matter of public record affidavit of my positive Identification is unacceptable to the USPS clerks (jerks) because it is not “government issued.” The Affidavit has my picture, my thumbprint, & 3 witnesses signatures,filed in the Bernalillo County New Mexico Clerk’s Office files, but it’s not government issued ID they say. Talk about the “mark of the beast.” Tell me about it. same ol same ol thing. There awetuh B a law against this.
Adask
September 16, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Ben,
Not in my opinion.
sem
September 17, 2012 at 9:24 AM
18 U.S.C. § 1341 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[2]
[edit] Wire
18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[3]
gary lee, house of russell
September 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Alfred,
I gues why I ask my question (County of…. City of..) is that here, for example, Sonoma County does not file CAFR (not involved in commerce) while the County of Sonoma (people tend to use interchangeably, not realizing they are two different entities, like US and uSA) does file a CAFR, same with the City of Santa Rosa and Santa Rosa and California Republic and State of California. I know when I filed My Affidavit of Identity, I used The united States of America, rather than the United States of America (which I believe Dennis Craig Bynum felt was created by Truman during Congress’ recess in 1948), but does it really come down to “The” versus “the”, or like we see here “County of Sonoma” versus Sonoma County, both which exist here but are very separate, depending on what you are doing to interact with them.
I apologize for being a little dense, but what I have seen here would suggest that your “State of…”.”County of…” is exactly the opposite of my understanding, which is based only on the filing of the CAFRs, which would be for those ex-sovereigns (according to the Clearfield Doctrine) which have become part of govco.
Again, I apologize for my lack of understanding, but I do want to understand this thoroughly, as application of the wrong understanding in this stuff is a major nightmare. Again, again, thank you to all of you who put so much time into figuring this sh*t out. When I grow up, I want to be as smart as you guys are!
Adask
September 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM
I don’t have a definitive answer to your questions. But I do know that the proper name for “Texas” is “The State of Texas”. I’ve seen “The State of Texas” expressly referenced in the Act of March 30th, A.D. 1870 that readmitted “Texas” back into representation in Congress as a State of the Union. Even today, the civil and penal codes of “Texas” each have sections that mandate that all lawful process shall be in the name of “The State of Texas”.
I do know from the Articles of Confederation that the proper name for this country is “The United States of America”.
I do not know for sure, but I certainly doubt that “Texas,” “TX,” “STATE OF TEXAS,” “THE STATE OF TEXAS,” or even “State of Texas” are synonymous and equivalent to “The State of Texas”. But I could be wrong. Maybe all of the varieties of the name “Texas” are all meant to signify a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. So what if I’m wrong? Where’s the harm. My only object in this regard is to establish that I am recognized as acting within the borders of a State of the Union. I don’t care what the name or names of that State of the Union may be.
If a court or other governmental agency wants me to stop wasting its time with my “conspiracy theories” about “State,” “state,” and “STATE” all they have to do is stipulate that all variations on the word “Texas” implicate a State of the Union. I’ll drop this issue in a heartbeat. All I want is to be recognized as acting within the borders of a State of the Union.
I raise the name issue in order to specifically define my venue as “The State of Texas”. I’m trying to eliminate any ambiguity and thereby deprive the court of the opportunity to silently presume that I’ve voluntarily consented to enter into and act in what I believe may be the fictional venue of “this state”.
More, I’m not suggesting that anyone follow my lead, suggestions, or hypotheses. I’m just sayin’ “Here’s what I think MIGHT be true–what do YOU think?”
Don
October 6, 2012 at 2:25 PM
To: Alfred, et.al.
“TX” is used instead of, “The State of Texas,” ONLY for the purpose of saving ink & printing costs in government paperwork.Same applies to Inalienable v. Unalienable. You see, the U is twice the size of I, & using the I instead of U is only for the purpose of saving ink & printing costs. I have many other government saving ink & printing costs examples, but I will only share them with those who say,e.g. tell me more. The nice thing is, my fee is very reasonable. I will even extend credit, if he/she qualifies. BUT !! You must hurry, I cannot make this offer for long.
Adask
September 17, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Me, too.
Don
September 19, 2012 at 3:47 AM
gary lee, house of russell
You ain’t dense by any means.
Don
September 20, 2012 at 9:19 AM
Re: major nightmare:
You got that right !!
palani
September 17, 2012 at 7:39 AM
Those mileage signs you see along highways showing the distance to a city is measured from where you are to the Post Office of the city rather than city hall.
Those convicted of sexual perversions are prohibited from “living” within 1,000 yards (or some other dimension) from schools. The distance is not measured from the home to the school. It is measured from the mailbox to the school.
Free delivery of mail to the homes started during the civil war. Nowhere is it found written but acceptance of this free home delivery of mail is quid pro quo for registering for selective service. That holds for today as much as it did during the civil war. Your postage stamp only pays from post office to post office. With general delivery the post office used to publish notices of undelivered mail in the local newspaper by name.
Anon4fun
September 17, 2012 at 8:06 AM
palani said: “Nowhere is it found written but acceptance of this free home delivery of mail is quid pro quo for registering for selective service. That holds for today as much as it did during the civil war. Your postage stamp only pays from post office to post office.”
No wonder lines at the post office are so long. Those are the people who didn’t register for selective service.
palani
September 18, 2012 at 6:28 AM
General delivery is still available but don’t try to tell ‘em that. You just call for your mail and if there is none don’t bother telling them you will be making use of this service for the unforeseeable future. Their cover story is that you have 30 days to make use of this service and the implication is that it will not be available 30 days after the first letter is received. In reality the 30 days is the hold time they place on each general delivery letter before they get returned to sender.
I haven’t seen anything about general delivery shown in the DMM.
Ummer
September 17, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Search facility of all the publications here: http://pe.usps.com/
sem
September 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM
To whom it may concern:
Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics…even if you win, your’e still retarded.
Name calling and other such ‘Foolishness’ does not warrant response.
PeaceOut
Don
September 19, 2012 at 4:55 PM
sem said on September 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Name calling and other such ‘Foolishness’ does not warrant response.
sem said on September 16, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Police is Police IDIOT! (It’s the same kind of bullet).
I,Don asked:”What is the purpose of the “State” Police?” (This should be a thought provoking question for anyone who has any depth of perception of what “stealthy encroachments” means.
sem answered: Police is Police IDIOT! (It’s the same kind of bullet).
Great answer sem.
Don
September 20, 2012 at 1:02 AM
Jethro
You ask: Don, again… have you *asked* them (formally) why they changed it, and by what authority they changed it?
First of all I did not ask “them” (formally) for anything. I DEMANDED. To explicity explain what I did do woud be tedious,so let me make “The “end result” as short as I can. In this particular I am writing about, I wanted the “District Court of The United States, NOT, The United States District Court to adjudicate whether I was a “citizen of the United States per the 14th amendment” & IF NOT then why was I being subjected to “due process of law” via “appropriate legislation per section 5 of the 14th amendment.”
I had a ton of case law as well as other maxims of law I presented to “support” & actually prove my point. “They” did not want to touch my “petition” with a 20 foot pole because if they did it would not have opened up a can of worms, it would have opened up a barrel of vipers. So it went back & forth & back & forth on & on & on until FINALLY my Petition was dismissed for being frivolous, specious,spurious,garbled, & without foundation & merit, & a few more “goodies” like that. I could see plainly from what was transpiring from the inception they did not want to touch it.& did everything they could to make me change my position/stand.etc. Remember, I said earlier they converted my petition into a Title 42 section 1983 Petition. Title 42 section IS FOR 14th amendment citizens of the United States & subject to ITS jurisdiction. Did I object,etc., to them doing this? YOU BET! And, I let them know in explicit words WHY!!
SO I appealed my “frivolous,specious,spurious,garbled & without foundation & merit petition to the 10th Circuit Court.
I or “IT” was charged with,I think,8 SERIOUS felonies. ALL flat out lies, but regardless I was the one being tormented. Shortly after my appeal was received by the 10th circuit court of appeals, things changed dramatically. I was told By the “STATE” District Judge (who was a “respondent)” in my petition that IF I would plead guilty to criminal trespass(a misdemeanor) ALL of the serious FELONY charges would be dismissed. He said: “YOU HAVE GOT TO PLEAD GUILTY TO SOMETHING”!! DOES THAT TELL YOU ANYTHING Jethro? I refused to do that,i.e. plead guilty to criminal trespass. SO the persecuting attorney dropped/dismissed ALL charges & the 10th circuit dismissed my petition on the grounds that NOW it is a moot point. That’s how they got out of deciding my petition on the “merits.” No one will will ever convince me that there was not some fancy footwork & talking going on between the 10th circuit & the “this state” district attorney.
I will add more to this nightmare later because what I have told you is by no means all of the story.
You,Jethro,say in pertinent part: “one case made national news within my industry….”
Tell me about it. Is it on/in the “books?’
Jethro
September 20, 2012 at 9:19 AM
Don, not having details about your case but going from what you wrote… Regarding your request for the court to adjudicate your citizenship status, you were effectively asking them to decide a “political question”, which they cannot do — see e.g. Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 and Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186. Citizenship is of a political nature (executive branch) and due to the separation of powers doctrine courts generally will not hear it.
So the court likely proceeded on the *presumption* you had elected to be treated as a “citizen” in the nature of the “14th amendment” (is there an SS-5 application out there for “DON”?) and was therefore “helping” you by putting your petition in the “right court” via the “right statute”. If you look at U.S. v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179, you’ll see that there is an affirmative duty for a defendant to establish “that he is not a citizen of the United States”. Did you introduce any *admissible evidence* of your proper citizenship status? (Just saying “I’m not a 14th amendment citizen!” in pleadings is not enough because it’s not evidence). If not, then they proceeded on with the presumption you’re a U.S. citizen.
Even at that, it sounds like you did a very good job of pressing the issue to where they may have had to admit the (otherwise silent) presumptions thereby exposing the scam. Dismissing the case is typically their preferred route to a potential upsetting of their revenue apple cart.
As for my case, please contact me directly and I can provide details, though this case had nothing to do with anything of a “patriot” nature.
Don
September 20, 2012 at 5:49 PM
Hi Jethro,
I cannot find anything in the “Federal Constitution” re: Political Questions. ALL the cases you
mention are/were decided AFTER the 14th amendment. I don’t need their 14th & on amendment via appropriate legislation opinions
Admissible Evidence? Apparently not,eg my made a matter of public record affidavit of “Positive Identification of Donald Blaine;Bailey,” affidavit of facts opposing foreign venue & other made a matter of public record documents filed in The Eddy County, New Mexico county clerk’s office,20 years ago.
How do I contact you directly? I do not understand what you mean. My email address is:donaldbailey02@comcast.net
Don
September 20, 2012 at 7:10 PM
Jethro
P.S. I read (red) the “Slater Case.” I say If anyone consents to being the “defendant” their “class” of citizenship is already established & made a matter of record. BUT insisting that you are not the defendant doesn’t matter. They apply no will but their own.
Back when I thought I was a “human being,” I was talking to a lawyer who once was a New Mexico Supreme Court Justice. In essence I said you know the N.M Supreme Court just recently said that “nowhere in the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code is the the term “human being” defined. I said now IF I am a “human being” how can I be subject to the demands made in the NMMVC? He said I understand exactly what you are saying but they have “other ways” of saying you are obligated.
Don
September 20, 2012 at 7:46 PM
Jethro,
Re Your words The Court “helping” you(me) by putting your(my) petition in the “right court.
Yeah!! They are here to help us, no doubt about that.
There is a “District Court of the United States,” & a “United States District Court.” There was a reason my Petition was “transferred” from one to the other. That was my 1st battle to overcome. I think that maybe my error/mistake was Petitioning either one in the first instance. I do know this. In a federal case, anyone claiming a violation of the 1st through the10th article of the declaration of rights,aka, Bill of Rights, those claims are “purviewed” through the 14th & on amendments. Let me ask you this. What is it necessary to have 2 power clauses in The Federal Constitution. Remember: Congress shall have power….. Then there is the 2nd power clause beginning with the 13th amendment. Something is fishy here..
Don
September 20, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Hi Jethro
You say: “Dismissing the case is typically their preferred route to a potential upsetting of their revenue apple cart.”
THERE YA GO !!
palani
September 20, 2012 at 4:52 PM
This seems to be a fairly complete web page concerning details of mailing to sovereign States.
http://www.abodia.com/1/postage/
Richard
September 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM
With respect to Sem’s comment re: 18 U.S.C. § 1341, I have used the following to return mail to any and all huckster’s including irs, govt.-co. “agencies”, collections, etc.; (printed or hand-written preferably in red ink)
REFUSED FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR!
Addressee honors: Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1342
Sender attempts to violate 18 U.S.C. Section 1341
All Rights Reserved-Without Recourse.
Matter Not Properly Addressed [italics]
Don
September 20, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Hello Richard,
Per your REFUSED FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR!
Did it fly? I’m trying to be cute. I sincerely would like to know if there was any “kickback” etc.
Mark
September 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM
I find this topic of domestic vs. non-domestic very interesting. I have been researching non-domestic mail for some time and I am convinced that placing certain elements on the envelope determines your jurisdiction, at least when it comes to your mailings. Zip codes and state abbreviations are trademarked by the US corporation and anytime you used these you are presumed to be sending domestic mail. But if you are not sending domestic mail, but outside of the US corporation, then the .02 cents per ounce non-domestic rate applies.
Even though I believe the actual non-domestic rate is .02 cents per ounce, I’ve been using .03 cent stamps for convenience. I have sent several letters now for .03 and greeting cards for .06 cents and they always get delivered with no problems. I never had mail returned back to me. All I do is spell everything out (no abbreviations), leave out the zip codes, and on the left side write in brackets [FIRST CLASS MAIL NON-DOMESTIC]. That’s it!
I’m wondering if this same postage rates apply internationally, since I read that all American post offices and international post offices are under the Universal Postal Union (UPU).
When you are sending mail domestically, you are using the United States Postal Service (corporation), but when you send non-domestic you are using the original post office.
Don
September 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Re: your “similar method to the Dennis Craig documents”
Who did you send them to, or what did you do with the “documents” after you completed the “information” in them?
Don
September 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM
sem,
You say: “It’s as simple as what he said.”
My question is: “It’s as simple as what WHO said? Who is “he”?
Stephen of jeffries
September 27, 2012 at 11:57 AM
To all about and you al, this the pro se – pro per Guerrilla LAWFARE, have any of you thouht of using a “Novation after looking up constitutor -er, a person who promised to pay the debt of another. As a young one where you not made to pladge to the flag or promise to defend things??
Donald
October 3, 2012 at 1:07 PM
Stephen of jeffries.
You ask:As a young one where you not made to pledge to the flag or promise to defend things??
NOPE, I was taught how to kick a..(butt) take names,get convictions & raise revenue for the STATE. aka, We’re here to help you.
Thomas
May 1, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Mail is unde treaty with the UPU and applies to the United States which is the District of Columbia and its Political subdivisions.
In order to get the full picture of this you must take the Organic Laws: of which there are four of them into consideration. Most will tell you that the Articles of Confederation are no longer law, in fact they are and it applies to to Positive Law in statutes of the United States and the United States of America, now this may sound confusing but the later is only within Territory of what remains of the Northwest Ordinance, within that is the jurisdiction of the United States not the states that established boarder when Ratification of the Articles of Confederation was established and still in force. In order to get the full picuture of this you must read from start to finish in detail the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Northwest Territory and U.S. Constituition. In brief the founders so to speak only took on the Northwest Territory in establishing their Constitution which means that once the state became a state within said territory and ratified the Articles of Confederation and established it boarders by its constitution niether could legislate with the area that was the Northwest Territory and only what remained of land not ceded to it, you will find this in the statutes of Title ! which is called the Organic Law. Should you have any questions please direct them and I will attempt to free your mind of the confusion that is placed there do to the public school system.
thomas russo
May 4, 2013 at 10:15 AM
So called domestic mail manual; what has to be realised is that the Organic laws which are four documents within Title one of the U.S. Code and reading them. The United States is the territory that was formed from the original states that ceded land to it, to pay off the debt of the Revolutions, in so doing that territory is known as the Northwest Ordinance. When that specific area was sold, that is the land and borders were established like Ohio and they ratified the Articles of Confederation, established a Constituition in 1803 with borders the territory which composed under the Northwest Ordinance could no longer be regulated by any legislative body that no longer existed that was under the United States of America and governed by the United States (District of Columbia) nor the state formed there in with the exception of Forts, Ports and needfull buildings within those specific areas. So in conclusion the new state formed like Ohio could also no longer legislate anything outside its political area that was left after Ratification of the Articles of Confederation and now left with only itself to legislate under, which means they could place legislation upon themselves and their voting principles/and employees that work for them.
Should one read the Articles of Confederation one would see that is states adopt “this Constitution for the United States” not the Constitution “of the United States”, for the later is a Territorial Constitution which was taken on and is limited to that specific territory owned by the United States of America known as the Northwest Territory not the newly formed Constitutional states with established border that Ratified the Articles of Confederation. Now, in 1851 Ohio, that is the legislative make up went by “Resolution” which is not law for anyone outside that body polotic and applied that Constitutional aspect to themselves, which is to address what is called Dillons Rule which deals with one subject in all legislative acts, and that means all legislation can not deal with multible subject in any legislative act and are confined to that specific area of rule, so what is left is that they, that is the legislative political body can only deal as a political subdivision of the United States (Distirct of Columbia) in what is now called “Revised Code” for its body polotic as a political subdivision, so after all of this the only lands that are left in Ohio for them to govern is Wayne National forest and their employees which are public and no one outside or any lands that do not belong to them for after Ratification and establishing borders the Northwest Territory was gone and a mute subject that could no longer be legislated upon anyone that was a “free inhabitant pursuant to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation which have all the privileges and immunities as state citizens. So after the Civil War they came up with the idea of the 14 th amendment and used the simular language, that is privileges and immunities within it, but they were applied to slaves under the commerce clause and those slave were also things they created, like corporations, but they are only allowed when established to operate in territory owned by the United States of America and subject to the legislation created by the United States (District of Columbia) and its political subdivisions, so know you have municipal corporations which are politcal subdivisions of the United States/STATE OF______ and so fourth, so now the trap is to make you think you are one of them and they do this by coming up with the birth certificate idea and the hospital sending a copy to the Department of Commerce and in turn they send them some Five Thousand Dollars for that act, so now they have you beleive in your mind that you are that personage/persona, which is a mask that you assume and then they establish one by your alleged voting for something you will never, ever have controll over by and though some Alice In Wonderland theatrical move.
So know they send you to a PUBLIC SCHOOL and dumb you down to were you think everything is just fine, when in fact they captured your minde to beleive the lie was the truth, instead of the truth of it all was a lie to take away your free inhabitant status under Article IV of the Articles of Confederation by not teaching it to anyone, when in fact it is in plain sight but in the UNITED STATES CODE/Statutes at Large. What they could not do is deal with mail within the Articles of Confederation so they had to have a TREATY with other scum bags in international arena with mail and that is when they moved to DOMESTIC MAIL not non domestice which was established in the begining and was originally called a POST, so what is left is that you are the POST OFFICE not the USPS which is international under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and a Corpoation.
Posted
Free inhabitant