The Backyard Chicken Movement

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There’s no profound insight in this article.  There’s not even the pretense of a profound insight.  It’s just a little article to illustrate a possibly practical application of some of the theories I explore on this blog.

 

 

I just read an article entitled “The Backyard Chicken Movement” which describes:  1) the growing American movement to raise our own chickens for eggs and fryers in own own backyards; and 2) the growing resistance to “residential chickens” from local governments.

When I saw the article’s title, I thought it was probably about restricting the average American’s ability to raise his own food.  I expected to read how the government wants us dependent on government for our food, so they won’t let us grow (or store) our own.  So I was hoping to find some evidence to support the “man or other animals” theme that is prominent in my thinking.

I was mistaken.  The article explains that local governments’ attempts to restrict raising backyard chickens had virtually nothing to do with food, but was, instead, based on zoning regulations.

 

US vs USA

Philadelphia – Old City: Independence Hall – The Signing of the Constitution in A.D. 1787. But did the “Singning” constitute Ratification?  (Photo credit: wallyg)

A couple of friends sent an email to me concerning the meanings of “United States,” “United States of America” and “The United States of America”.  I replied as follows:

It seems to me that the Founders were incredibly casual with their use of the terms “United States” and “The United States of America”.  They routinely used the term “the United States of America” (in the Preamble, for example) to almost certainly mean “The United States of America”.  That allowed later generations of villains to define “United States of America” in a way that’s other than “The United States of America”.  They left us an almost astonishing burden of ambiguity and confusion.  In retrospect, their failure to precisely define what “United States” and “the United States of America” meant is equivalent to an Achilles Heel that opened the door to great treason in this country.  They assumed the meanings of those terms were obvious and would remain obvious to their descendants.  They were mistaken.

 

Geo. Washington: 1st President of the United States or 8th President of The United States of America? Or Both?

Gilbert Stuart’s Portrait of George Washington (The Constable-Hamilton Portrait) Year = 1797) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I received an email from “menaradi” that reads as follows:

“Just read your article on the Constitution and enjoyed it, but came across this one and thought you might like to read it, especially the 2nd to last paragraph of this article…. tell me why don’t we know about the 1st seven presidents of this country????

“http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html”

I suspect that the answer to your question may be that the first “president” (John Hanson?) was not president of the “United States“–he was president under the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) and was therefore president of “The United States of America“.

Later, in A.D. 1789, the people created a new “government” by means of The Constitution of the United States.  That new government was the government of the “United States“–but not of “The United States of America”.  The first president of the “United States” was George Washington–but it’s possible that Washington may also have been the eighth (?) president of The United States of America.

 

Use of the Zip Code is Voluntary

ZIP code promotional sign with “Mr. ZIP” on a hotel letter drop. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I received an email containing the following article. I don’t know who wrote it, but it appears credible.  Unfortunately, not every claim in the article is documented with an underlying authority.  However, most of the claims can be traced to an authority.  

While I have embraced the idea that TX, OK and CA signify “administrative divisions of US territory,” this article claims that use of the Zip Code creates prima facie evidence that you are a “resident” or Washington DC.  The two hypotheses seem to deal with the same concept:  that the government presumes we are in a federal venue (where we are subjects of Congress) rather than within a venue of a State of the Union (where we are individual sovereigns).  

 

Tim Turner Indictment

Anti-United States Internal Revenue Service symbol. Commonly used by tax protesters and tax reform advocates in the United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Tim Turner is “patriot”/ “legal reform activist” who has been teaching people one or more strategies for confronting the IRS in particular and government in general.  I don’t recall ever talking to or seeing the man.  He’s recently been indicted by a federal grand jury for a number of alleged offenses.

Other than what I’ve learned in the past week reading two documents (1.  a motion by the government to detain Turner in prison without bail until the trial; and 2) the indictment against Turner), I have no knowledge of the man or whatever strategies he’s proposed.  I’m not posting this commentary on my blog for the sake of supporting or attacking Turner.

Instead, my purpose is to simply present my copy of Turner’s indictment with my various colorizing highlights and comments.

I see Turner’s indictment as instructive and even surprising.  I learned a few things from Turner’s indictment.  More, his indictment has even cast some doubt on principles I’d previously thought to be solid.

You can download a pristine copy (none of my highlighting and comments) of Turner’s indictment at:  http://www.researchsociety.org/Cases/12-CR-00169-MHT-WC/pdf/001-20120912.pdf

You can download a copy Turner’s indictment with my highlighting and commentary here:  120926 Tim Turner Indictment 001-20120912

 

Fundamental Presumptions

Dr Livingstone, I Presume (Photo credit: : rebecca :)

I received an email today that wasn’t quite clear but seemed to inquire about the unstated presumptions on which the courts (and the cops) rely.  I replied as follows:

Hi Phil,

I don’t think I understand your email.  I’m not sure what you’re asking about.

But if you’re asking about presumptions, they exist in law and/or equity–unless someone expressly refutes them.

As an hypothetical example, the judge is probably aware of a law or rule of evidence that presumes everyone who enters his court to be a “citizen of the United States”.  If so, then if you enter his courtroom, he will silently presume you to be a “citizen of the United States” and say nothing about that presumption–unless, you are smart enough to know of that presumption, and you expressly deny the presumption and/or introduce evidence to refute that presumption.  If a fundamental presumption of citizenship is refuted, the court might no longer have the in personam jurisdiction it needs to proceed.

 

Just a Thought

The International Currency of the NWO?

Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States declares in part, that “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”.  The mandate for gold and silver coin applies only to the States of the Union.  There is no similar constitutional restriction on the currencies that might be used in Washington DC or the territories since they are not “States” of the Union.

I’ve therefore concluded that the use of Federal Reserve Notes would be at least restricted and probably prohibited  within the States of the Union, but would be quite legal within any territory of the United States or Washington DC. This distinction between the constitutional venues of currencies is the cornerstone for my contention that “Texas,” “TX” and even “STATE OF TEXAS” do not signify the State of the Union whose proper name is “The State of Texas,” but instead signify a territory.  I.e., it’s lawful to use Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) in the “territory” of TX, but it would be unlawful to use FRNs within “The State of Texas”.

Thus, it might be that the mere use of FRNs would constitute evidence that you had “voluntarily” left your State of the Union to transact business in a fictional territory.  Within the State you would have many rights, but no currency.  Within the territory you’d have ample access to a fiat currency, but little or no real rights.

 

Do you Understand the Charges?

Not guilty graffiti (Photo credit: duncan)

Many of us involved in the “legal reform” movement have understood for most of twenty years that when a judge asks a defendant if “Do you understand the charges against you,” something “funny” is happening.  We believe the judge isn’t merely asking if we comprehend the charges on an intellectual basis.

Instead, we suspect that, by using the word “understand” as a term of art, the judge is actually asking if we agree, consent, or even contract to be subject to the charges claimed by the plaintiff or prosecution.    The implication of this suspicion is that we must agree to “understand” the charges before the judge can proceed.  I.e., if we expressly refuse to “understand” the charges, the court might not be able to proceed against us.

However, even though we’ve “understood” that “somethin’ funny” is goin’ on whenever the court asks “Do you understand the charges?,” I, at least, have not precisly understood what the judge means when he asks that question.

Understand?

 

Senator Harry Reid Insists the Income Tax is Voluntary (But also Mandatory)

Harry Reid (D-NV), United States Senator from Nevada and Majority Leader of the United States Senate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The video below is interesting since Senator Harry Reid insists that “our income tax system is a voluntary system” but also that you must pay your income taxes.  The interviewer tries to force Sen. Reid to admit that: 1) our income tax system is voluntary and we don’t have to volunteer, or 2) we must pay income taxes and thus the system is not voluntary.  The interviewer’s inability to make Senator Reid that either the income tax is–or is not–voluntary is kinda funny.  The interviewer’s frustration is almost like an old Abbot and Costello comedy routine about “Who’s On First”.

Senator Reid sounds like an idiot as he tries to maintain his position that our income tax system both is–and is not–”voluntary”.

But you should bear in mind that Harry Reid is a U.S. Senator, and while he’s getting on in years, maybe he’s not the fool he appears to be in this interview.  You can bet that Sen. Reid is masterful in his use of language.  Maybe he knows something that the interviewer doesn’t know or even suspect.  Maybe the income tax both is, and is not, voluntary.  Maybe, as President Clinton once remarked, “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

I think Senator Reid may right: the income tax is both voluntary–and involuntary.

How could such ambiguity and contradiction be possible?  It all depends on the place or venue where the income tax is being considered.

 

“in this state” of California

Image via Wikipedia

Here’s a link to an article exploring the meaning and incidence of the use of the phrase “in this state” relative to “California”.

It won’t take long to read, and it supports other research into the difference between “this state” and The State of Texas, or The State of California, and the other States of the Union.

The “this state” vs. The State hypothesis is catching on.

http://www.pauljjhansen.com/?p=293