RSS

Use of the Zip Code is Voluntary

03 Oct

English: ZIP code promotional sign with "...

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).  

Nevertheless, it may well be that the author of this article has presented an hypothesis that is more accurate than the “The State vs this state” hypothesis that I’ve advocated.  Or maybe my hypothesis is better than his.  I don’t know.  Or perhaps both hypotheses, though similar, are still flawed.  I don’t know who has the answer, but the following article appears to be a step in the right direction in that it provides more evidence of the need to understand, assert and control your venue (“know your place”).

All in all, the article appears to be valid.  But like anything else, take it all with salt.  Confirm whatever you can before you try to use the proposed strategy.  Let us know what you learn. 

Use of the ZIP Code is voluntary (see Domestic Mail Services Regulations, Section 122.32). The Postal Service can not discriminate against the non-use of the ZIP Code (see Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403 [Public Law 91-375]),

The federal government utilizes the ZIP Code to prove that you reside in a “federal district of the District of Columbia.” This is why the IRS and other government agencies (both state and federal) require a ZIP Code when they assert jurisdiction by sending you a letter. Though they claim its use is to speed the mail, it is a well planned and subtle trick. It is also PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that you are a subject of Congress and a “citizen of the District of Columbia,” who is “resident” in one of the 50 several states. U.S. “residency” was, along with U.S. “citizenship,” established by the 14th Amendment. The definition of the words “resident” and “inhabitant” mean the same thing (27 Fed. Cas.#16,024 US. v. Penelope (1508)). Since nearly all exercise of jurisdiction by federal government is “Commerce Clause” based, action by the feds may only be taken upon U.S. residents. A resident is one who opens a store or takes any step preparatory to business. A resident engages in buying and selling, a commercial activity. The “step preparatory” was the “birth certificate” (another subject, for another time).

The receipt of mail with a ZIP Code is one of the requirements for the IRS to have jurisdiction to send you notices. The government can not bill an American National, as he is not within the purview of the municipal laws of the District of Columbia. In fact, the Internal Revenue Service has adopted the ZIP Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts (see the Federal Register, Volume 5 1, #53, Wednesday, March 19, 1986).

Remember, the Postal Service is a private corporation, no longer a full government agency. It is a quasi governmental agency like the Federal Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Marshall Service. As private corporations they are all outside the restrictions of the Federal Constitution. They are all powerful in their respective areas of responsibility to enforce collection for the federal debt.

When you use the Zip Code you are, in effect, saying openly and notoriously that you do not live in the American Republic, but instead, are a “resident” in the “state of the forum” area of the District of Columbia (a federal district). This places you within the municipal jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. Now, what is your status? Are you a “slave” and a second class citizen (so commonly referred to as a “federal or U.S. citizen”) or are you an American National, in the American Republic? Don’t we say: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands…..? You must decide who and what you are. The importance of exercising your claim of exemption from use of the ZIP Code can not be overstated. This is especially true when litigating federal matters. When you claim the exemption from ZIP Codes you show the status of not a U.S. resident. Many people simply leave the ZIP Code off, but this just looks like an oversight on your part, not an intentional act of claiming the exemption, and “they” will simply issue the ZIP to you.

To claim the exemption from ZIP Codes:

1) Write “c/o” before the street address.

2) Use the “postal zone” (follow the name of the city with the last 2 digits of the ZIP).

3) Spell out and underline the state.

4) Add the words ZIP EXEMPT.

5) Use upper and lower case letters with initial caps only, don’t use ALL CAPS.

6) Don’t appreviate Street, Highway, Avenue, etc. (optional)

Example:

1234 MAIN ST.
PASADENA, CA
91101

Becomes:

c/o 1234 Main Street
Pasadena 01, California
ZIP EXEMPT

I use a different format for my mailing address.  You can see that format on my “Contact” page.  I will probably upgrade my format to include “Zip Exempt”.   I think the author of the previous article made a very good point when he said that merely refusing to include a Zip Code on your letters can be presumed to be an “oversight” which the Post Office will “correct” by adding a Zip Code on your behalf.    

I’ve sent letters without Zip Codes in the past and watched as the clerk in the Post Office added a Zip Code.  I let it go because the addition was made in a different colored ink and hand-written and therefore distinct from the address I personally typed/printed onto the envelope.  I thought that distinction would be sufficient to deny the Zip Code link.

In retrospect, I think I was probably wrong.  I should’ve included “Zip Exempt” on my letters in order to expressly declare that the absence of a Zip Code is not an oversight, but an intentional choice and therefore evidence that I voluntarily choose to live and act within the borders of a State of the Union rather than a federal territory and/or Washington DC.

 
 
124 Comments

Posted by on October 3, 2012 in "The State" vs. "this state", USPS, Venue, Zip Code

 

Tags: , , , , ,

124 responses to “Use of the Zip Code is Voluntary

  1. patrick

    October 3, 2012 at 11:15 AM

    I am no longer domestic within any STATE of US. My post is simple:

    non domestic private post
    name (all lower case but definitely not all upper case :)
    C/o street name all typed out (no RD’s in here)
    on city, on state name, on county

    This is mail to the living man, not the domestic created transmitting utility…

    I get my mail without issue…in the next couple of days I am testing out sending mail in private using 2 cents…as long as its totally private post, two pennies is the law…

    Stick this on a mailing label underneath your return post.

    Statutory Non-Domestic rate,
    First Class U.S. Mail Fully Pre-Paid
    12 Stat. at Law, Ch 71, Sec 23 zip code exempt [DMM 122.32]
    Federal Offense to collect additional Postage
    18 U.S.C. 1726 [“without United States”]

    I met several people who claim this is how they have been rolling for years…might get a few back at first, but then a private. pleasant conversation with the local postmaster should clear it up.

    peace

     
  2. Mark

    October 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM

    I’ve been sending sovereign letters to friends and family for .03 cents per half ounce. That is the last rate set by the lawful government. The zip code is voluntary, so there is no need to even write “ZIP EXEMPT”. Zip codes and state abbreviations are copyrighted and owned by the US postal service. Whenever you use any of these things, you are admitting to be within their jurisdiction. I leave off zip codes and spell everything out, and in brackets put [FIRST CLASS MAIL NON-DOMESTIC]. Then take it to the post office and drop it in their drop box (inside the post office).

     
  3. Jose Linares

    October 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

    Anyone read this: about the three United States:

    http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter4.htm

    Chapter 4:

    The Three United States

    In the previous chapter, a handy matrix was developed to organize the key terms which define the concepts of status and jurisdiction as they apply to federal income taxation. In particular, an alien is any individual who is not a citizen of the “United States**”. The term “citizen” has a specific legal meaning in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) which promulgate the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”):

    Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

    [26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]

    What, then, is meant by the term “United States” and what is meant by the phrase “its jurisdiction”? In this regulation, is the term “United States” a singular phrase, a plural phrase, or is it both?

    The astute reader has already noticed that an important clue is given by regulations which utilize the phrase “its jurisdiction”. The term “United States” in this regulation must be a singular phrase, otherwise the regulation would need to utilize the phrase “their jurisdiction” or “their jurisdictions” to be grammatically correct.

    As early as the year 1820, the U.S. Supreme Court was beginning to recognize that the term “United States” could designate either the whole, or a particular portion, of the American empire. In a case which is valuable, not only for its relevance to federal taxes, but also for its terse and discrete logic, Chief Justice Marshall exercised his characteristic brilliance in the following passage:

     
    • Don

      October 4, 2012 at 7:12 AM

      Hello,Jose Linares

      There is also a “United States of Brazil.” So, see how ridiculous it is to be asked the question of: Were you born in the United States? And, if you answer, which one, you are thought to be off your rocker.If you answer,e.g., I was born in the State of Virginia, a Republican State of the united States of America, This answer to “them”(the enemy) is taken to mean you/I have just admitted that we are “United States citizens & subject to ITS jurisdiction. So, it’s damned if you do & damned if you don’t. Heads they win & tails we lose.

       
      • Jose Linares

        October 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM

        Don, there is also the United States of Mexico, “Estados Unidos Mexicanos”. Re the question where were you born? I think is a fallacious one, since I could not know where I was born when the act took place, so the question should be, “Where have you been told you were born?” or “Where has it been represented as your place of birth to you?”

        And as always, question everything before opening your mouth in reply to someone else’s question.

         
      • Don

        October 6, 2012 at 3:34 PM

        Jose, You say: “And as always, question everything before opening your mouth in reply to someone else’s question.”

        The trap is: “ANYTHING you say CAN & WILL BE used against you.” “They” also let you know this “up front.” My MANY sordid experiences prove they do whatever turns their crank. They ignore affidavits which are supposed to be taken as true, if not overcome by counter evidence. No counter evidence was/is ever presented. They just proceed like a bulldozer tearing down buildings. I have faced them eyeball to eyeball for almost 30 years. I think I cas safely say that no one in “this Nation/Country has been found in contempt of court more than I have. I said “contempt of court” now. I’m sure I do not hold the record for the number of arrests, but even there, I could very well be in the top 100.

         
  4. palani

    October 3, 2012 at 2:03 PM

    I know of a guy who had a search warrant served upon him at his home. What the judicial system was looking for? Evidence of how he received mail.

     
    • Joe

      October 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM

      If someone showed up at my doorstep with a search warrant, and that document identified a location having a ZIP code, I would attempt to escort them to the mailbox so they could search the premises identified on the search warrant.

       
    • Don

      October 4, 2012 at 7:19 AM

      Palani,
      What is your opinion about putting the zip code in brackets,e.g. [ 87032 ] ??

       
  5. Joe

    October 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

    I haven’t made an issue of it, but I have been perplexed by your distinction between “The State vs. this state.” I live on Georgia, and I have not found anything in any records announcing the existence of “The State of Georgia.” The first state constitution offered to the people of Georgia required an oath of allegiance to “this state,” which is not defined at all in the constitution. It also required that a man declare his property subject to tax. In exchange for his allegiance to “this state” and his tacit admission that his property was subject to taxation, he was given the right to vote for a representative. The elected representatives then were required to take an oath to the “State of Georgia”, which is not “The State of Georgia.” (A maxim of law is, a thing similar is not the same.) On the whole, the first constitution offered to the people of Georgia appears to be an invitation to commit idolatry, by giving one’s allegiance to a man-made institution instead of to his Creator, and an invitation to sin by swearing an oath. It is also an invitation to voluntarily make your property subject to taxation. I suspect the first constitution of Georgia was cobbled together by some attorneys, which is to say, agents of the Crown, in order to subjugate free men who had just won their liberty through force of arms. The whole scheme reminds me of how Balaam advised Balak to defeat the Israelites by enticing them to sin.

     
    • Donald

      October 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM

      Hi Joe,
      What does the “cover Page” of “your state constitution” say? How does it read(reed)? That which follows is a cut & paste portion of information I sent to a so called judge. #3 out of 35 examples.

      3. First, the New Mexico Constitution, in Article Six (VI), § Twenty (20), mandates and shows, verbatim in § 20: [Styles of writs and processes]. “All writs and processes shall issue, and all prosecution shall be conducted in the name of, “The State of New Mexico,” not, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, in all capital letters, which is a “fictitious non living entity.”

      Brother Alfred, my friend, uses, “this State,” I guarantee, because that IS the “term” the enemy, those who are here to help us,use,e.g. i.e., this State, this State, this State, this State. In hopes I am not misunderstood, Alfred, does not want any part of, “This State.” He is a part of “The State.”

      This may appear to be “nitpickin” but when “the enemy” changes one little letter in a word from U to I (as in eye) they change the true intended meaning,e.g. UNalienable to INalienable. If you disagree, then why change the letter at all? I was told it was changed from U to I because, U is twice the size of I and the change was made to save ink & printing costs in government paperwork.

      RIGHT !!!

       
      • Adask

        October 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

        Actually, I believe the term “this state” signifies the territorial entity. I believe “The State” and/or “the State” is shorthand for the the State of the Union.

        Here on Texas, Article 1.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal procedure and Rule 15 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure both mandate that all lawful process (criminal and civil) be carried out in the name (authority) of “The State of Texas”. It may be that lots of process is consistent with that requirement, but I don’t recall seeing any.

        I don’t believe that failure to use “The State of Texas” on process is not a mistake. I believe that’s the way “this state” signals that it is not “lawful” process that mandates your compliance. You are presumed to know the law. (Ignorance is no excuse.) Therefore, if process does not include “The State of Texas,” they are telling you that “they” are not agents of The State of Texas, and that the venue of the process is in the venue of a territory rather than a State of the Union.

        By giving this “notice,” “this state” avoids being sued or charged with the offense of “impersonating” “The State of Texas”. They protect themselves by NOT including “The State of Texas”. I.e., if “this state” used “The State of Texas,” it would be criminal fraud. So long as they don’t use “The State of Texas,” I suspect that they are presumed to have given the people adequate notice that they are not “The State” and compliance with their process is “private” and/or voluntary–at least after you make some other move that can be presumed to be evidence that you have voluntarily entered into “this state”.

         
    • Adask

      October 3, 2012 at 8:30 PM

      You’re right. The “The State vs this state” distinction is perplexing. I haven’t been able to prove that the dichotomy exists. The most I can offer for evidence is “it walks like a duck”. I infer the existence of the alternative venue of “this state” from things like Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of the federal Constitution which declares in part, “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” That clause of the Constitution has never been repealed or amended and it presumably still in force today. And yet, our State governments pay their employees with Federal Reserve Notes, impose taxes, fees and fines with Federal Reserve Notes and conduct none of their financial dealings in gold or silver coin.

      To me, that means one of two things must be true:

      1) every financial transaction conducted by means of Federal Reserve Notes (rather than gold or silver coin) by the governments of the States of the Union must be unconstitutional; or,

      2) Those entities that currently pass for governments of the “States of the Union” are actually something else and therefore not subject to the gold/silver coin mandate of Article 1.10.1.

      Note that Article 1.10.1 says “No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” At the time the federal Constitution was written, there was only one kind of “State”–the States of the Union. Thus, the States of the Union must use gold and silver coin. But there is no similar requirement for the territories of the United States nor for Washington DC.

      Instead, under Article 4.3.2 of the federal Constitution, the Congress shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories of the United States. Thus, within a territory (or Washington DC), it’s absolutely lawful and “constitutional” for Congress to authorize the use of Federal Reserve Notes as currency and even prohibit the use of gold and silver coin. Therefore, while gold and silver coin were mandated within the States of the Union like “The State of Texas,” “The State of Oklahoma” or “The State of California,” if “this state” (say, TX, OK or CA) were deemed to be a territory, gold and silver would not be mandated by the Constitution.

      So, we are faced with a dilemma. Since your “state” does not use gold or silver coin as a tender in payment of debts, is your “state” always acting unconstitutionally whenever they impose a fee, fine or tax denominated in FRNs? Or, is your “state” actually a territory and therefore not obligated to use gold and silver coins?

      I don’t know the answer, but I presume the answer is that you your “state” is actually deemed to be a territory rather than a State of the Union. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe your “state” really is a State of the Union and it’s simply violating the Constitution every time it touches a FRN. But I don’t believe that’s the answer.

      Part of the confusion about “this state” is based on the fact that you can find the term “this state” in State constitutions, in laws that go back a century or more. Are we to believe that “this state” has been used as a code to signify territories since the 1800s?

      No.

      If “this state” really signifies “territories” rather than States of the Union, that signification has only been in effect, at most since the New Deal in A.D. 1933. More likely, “this state” didn’t come to really exist until A.D. 1948 (see 28 USC 81-131 which may be the legal descriptions of each of the administrative districts of “this state”). But if the “The State vs this state” dichotomy is real, it must’ve started no later than A.D. 1968 when the last of silver coin was removed from domestic circulation and all financial transactions within the “states” had to be conducted with FRNs.

      If the “The State vs this state” hypothesis is valid, “this state” (a territory) could not have existed prior to A.D. 1933, probably didn’t exist before A.D. 1948, and definitely had to exist no later than A.D. 1968.

      Therefore, where you see a term like “this state” used in, say, your State Constitution that was adopted back about A.D. 1870, the term “this state” was used innocently. They wrote “this state” but meant “The State”. If you see an instance of “this state” written between A.D. 1933 and A.D. 1948, you should be cautious. If you seen an instance of “this state” written between A.D. 1948 and A.D. 1968, you should be extremely suspicious. If you see an instance of “this state” written after A.D. 1968, you could be very confident that the term was intended to signify a territory rather than a State of the Union.

      This explanation may seem contrived. But if you’ve collected two or more of the Black’s Law Dictionaries (9–10?–editions published since about A.D. 1890), you can compare the meanings of words as they were defined in earlier editions to the meanings of words as defined in later editions and you will see that it is quite common for the “legal” meanings of words to change rapidly in the field of jurisprudence. Thus, it’s not the least bit surprising that a term like “this state” would have no significant meaning 100 years ago, but might have a very significant meaning today.

      Is all this “perplexing”? Yes, indeed. But is the “The State vs this state” hypothesis really any more perplexing than a society and legal system that claims were are the “land of the free,” while any fool can see we are caught in a rapidly growing police state?

      How do you explain the obvious and even horrific contradictions between what we can read as guaranteed in our Constitution and the police state we have become? I explain these contradictions with the “The State vs this state” hypothesis. If you have have a better hypothesis, do tell.

       
      • Don

        October 4, 2012 at 8:21 AM

        To: Alfred,et.al.

        “All this legislative machinery of martial law, military coercion, and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other.” President Andrew Johnson, March 23,1867

        “… here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 (million) people at once. It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands and degrades them all…” President Andrew Johnson, March 23,1867

        Is there any wonder why President Andrew Johnson was REALLY impeached ??

        “Although temporary in theory, a state of martial law may in fact continue indefinitely.” The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7 Micropedia, Fifteenth Ed.1989.

        This is where we have been, & this is where we are. It has been a slow insidious process. The “author” of all this oppression is just as “alive” today, as the inception thereof.

         
      • Don

        October 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

        Alfred,et.al.
        To continue,

        Thomas Jefferson asked, “What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government that has existed under the sun”? He answers by saying: “The generalization and concentrating of all powers under one body;” and, as written in Federalist # 47: “No political truth is of greater intrinsic value than that the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether hereditary, self appointed or elective, may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny;” and, The “Father of our Country,” George Washington, said in his farewell address: “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the powers on one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism”

        COMMENT-The foregoing caveat is fulfilled for in observing the “Executive branch flag(s)” in the legislative and judicial “branches” and the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, that, “All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States,” accord, Supreme Court Rules, Process; Mandates, this is “the one body,” today, that Thomas Jefferson warned of. Today, the Legislative and Judicial BRANCHES may be justifiably called, extensions of the Executive BRANCH. What happened to the, DEPARTMENTS? A branch, is an extension of its source but a department is a separation from another body. Department is defined as, a separate part or division. Branch is defined as, “any offshoot of a MAIN stem, as the branch of a stream; an offshoot, lateral extension, or subdivision, a tributary stream.”

        The stream has risen above its source.

        Justice Wilson, says, in Chisholm v. Georgia: “I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last oppressed their master and maker.”

         
      • Don

        October 4, 2012 at 8:36 AM

        To: Alfred,et.al

        Still continuing,

        NOW check out the judiciary act of June 25, 1948, and that’s when the lights should come on

         
  6. Howard R Music

    October 3, 2012 at 3:19 PM

    While stationed in Montana in the USAF, the closest towns were in Canada. At that time, the early 70s, people were casual about crossing the border. Often currency from either nation was used. It appears to me the zip code analogy is much like the concept of carrying FRNs causes a loss of sovereignty. Did carrying Canadian money cause a loss of American citizenship? It’s one big kid’s game. A serious one, but still a game.

     
  7. Lyndon

    October 3, 2012 at 4:36 PM

    I simply write:

    Lyndon Last Name

    Using Postal Location By Necessity:
    4321 First Street
    Portland, Oregon

    Zip code is completely omitted. I use the existing mail delivery system by necessity for there is no other means to identify my location as the corporation calling itself “government” has a monopoly on postal location identification.

     
  8. Jose Linares

    October 3, 2012 at 4:39 PM

    Hey Joe, I don’t think that you as one of the people/People have to swear allegiance to the constitution to have your rights guaranteed.

    The Constitution bounds those that seek to act through the authority of government, you by just being born are guaranteed your rights by those that voluntarily swear allegiance to support and sustain the constitutions, the law of the Land/Nation.

     
    • Adask

      October 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

      I agree. I understand the State and federal constitutions to be CHARITABLE TRUSTS. As one of the “people,” you are automatically a beneficiary of that trust even if you are only an infant. Surely an infant, baby, adolescent, teenager, etc. need not take some oath before they are deemed entitled to the benefits provided by the constitutions. The oath, however, will be required of those members of the people who volunteer to act as fiduciaries (officers) of those constitutional CHARITABLE TRUSTS. We the People will not trust you to exercise the powers of your State or federal constitutions unless you first swear that you will only use those massive powers in ways that are expressly limited by whichever constitution under which you volunteer to be an “officer”/fiduciary.

       
  9. Anon4fun

    October 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM

    From the email: {When you use the Zip Code you are, in effect, saying openly and notoriously that you do not live in the American Republic, but instead, are a “resident” in the “state of the forum” area of the District of Columbia (a federal district).}

    Where is the evidence for this claim? We would expect something like this to be codified somewhere. Where is it? If there is no citable evidence in a publicly accessible form, how does the emailer know this?

    Adask said: {I will probably upgrade my format to include “Zip Exempt”.}

    I would be careful about doing this. Maybe it’s the best idea since sliced bread, but in IRS-speak at least claiming to be “exempt” is like an affirmative defense. Exempt means you are essentially subject to them but have jumped through enough of their hoops to be let off the hook for the moment.

     
    • Adask

      October 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

      You might be correct about a potential danger in using “Zip Exempt” since that term (especially when used in conjunction with an express reference to the underlying section/authority in the Postal Code) may be interpreted as evidence that you have submitted to the Postal Code by virtue of relying upon its authority. If the Postal Code is only for the persons of “this state,” any reliance on that code might be self-defeating.

      Maybe.

      If so, then it might follow that we should include a statement something like “I deny being subject to using a Zip Code” at the bottom of our addresses. You’re not relying on the authority of the Postal Code to claim you don’t need a Zip Code and you’re not dead silent on the subject either (and thereby opening the door to allow the Post Office to presume you meant to use the Zip Code and to therefore add one for your convenience).

      I’m not saying this conjecture is true. I’m not recommending anyone try it. But I am recommending that we all consider the possibility that it might be true.

       
  10. Jose Linares

    October 3, 2012 at 4:58 PM

    Anon4fun:

    Check this out about being exempt from Social Security number

    N.J.A.C.

    § 13:21-1.3 Mandatory disclosure of social security number

    (a) An applicant for any special learner’s permit, examination permit, driver license, commercial driver license or any endorsement thereto, or registration shall disclose his or her social security number(s) upon the application form furnished by the Chief Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission.

    (b) A special learner’s permit, examination permit, driver license, commercial driver license or any endorsement thereto, or registration shall not be issued unless the applicant therefor discloses his or her social security number(s) upon the application form.

    (c) This section shall not apply to persons who are exempt from applying for a social security number.

     
  11. palani

    October 3, 2012 at 5:01 PM

    Other methods … Where the zip goes: CLOSE TO BUT NOT IN [ zip ]

    or

    When pressed : cf_ [zip] _ cf … ; i.e., bracket the zip code in cf … When asked tell ’em it is short for CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD.

     
    • Donald

      October 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

      WAY 2 GO, Palani. WOW !! YES YES YES !!!

       
    • Donald

      October 4, 2012 at 4:00 PM

      Palani,
      It seems that putting the zip code in brackets would be sufficient. When someone like my friend, Alfred, uses all that he requires to send him mail, it is difficult to hardly get anything else on the envelope.

       
  12. applescence

    October 3, 2012 at 9:49 PM

    Alfred,

    prior to cancelling and returning my drivers license, I went through the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES codebook, and they use both “this state” and “the state” in the Motor Vehicle Code. I was highlighting, try to detect a pattern, but, at least here in California, the STATE uses BOTH. I eventually gave up. : ) As Richard MacDonald has pointed out, they have two of everything, but sometimes it’s not easy distinguishing which is which.

    On my address, I use:
    gary lee, [russell]
    street (no abbreviations)
    Guerneville, Sonoma County
    California Republic
    postal code 95446 non-domestic mail
    ZIP CODE Exempt

    will that work? (Heaven’s I hope so!)

     
    • Adask

      October 3, 2012 at 10:40 PM

      I don’t know of any single format that’s guaranteed to work. However, as soon as you use any format out of the ordinary, you will have probably: 1) expressly challenged the presumption that you are a “resident” of Washington DC and/or a territory; and 2) implicitly raised a political question that the courts can’t answer. If that analysis is roughly correct, then any alternative format that challenges the Zip Code and associated presumption of your status should work–especially if you are questioned about “what did you mean by this” and you can offer an articulate answer.

      Sometimes, you don’t have to be perfect to win your defense. Sometimes, you can win by simply raising political questions which the courts can’t or won’t answer.

       
    • Don

      October 13, 2012 at 12:16 PM

      applesence,

      @ they use both “this state” and “the state” in the Motor Vehicle Code.

      “They” do whatever turns their crank. They have bestowed upon them immunities from A 2 Z. They are all TYRANTS,TRAITORS, BETRAYERS,EXTORTIONERS, GODLESS AGENTS OF SATAN Anyone can make that statement but I researched the true law for many years so I know what I’m talking about. People have a misconception about how Satan works. Remember the Holy Scripture says he appears as an angel of light. So do his agents.

       
    • Eldee Statesman

      February 5, 2013 at 3:07 PM

      I have been researching this subject for years. What I have found to be ‘the pattern’ is that, the ‘state’ is a corporate designation.

      One of the ‘key’ pieces of evidence for this was discovered in the Texas Traffic Laws, VCS Art. 6675C – Motor Carrier Registration, Sec. 8,(d), which says, “a motor carrier who is required to register under Sec. 3 of this article and who is transporting household goods shall file a tariff with the department which establishes maximum charges for transportation services where, in the course of such transportation a highway between two or more incorporated cities, towns, or villages is traversed. This requirement may be satisfied by filing a copy of the carrier’s tariff governing interstate transportation services, where in the course of such transportation a highway between two or more incorporated cities, towns, or villages is traversed.”

      In this respect, they are designating the “traversing” of two or more ‘corporate land-mass jurisdictions’ or ‘franchise territories’, is “interstate” transportation!!

      These designations have become more prevalent as the State (Texas) has formed more corporate structures. You can read through the State Constitution and see the changes from the Original intent, through the more recent amendments. You will also find the slow transition of “Electors” being converted to “voters”, as in, token ‘corporate’ steering committee ‘members’ (qualified, by [sur]rendering property to the corp. for taxation.

      Every one of these Corp. structures violates the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 26, – Perpetuities and Monopolies (pertinent part) – Perpetuities and monopolies are CONTRARY TO THE GENIUS OF A FREE GOVERNMENT AND SHALL NEVER BE ALLOWED…” (emphasis added); which violates Article 1, Sec. 1, 2, 3, and several others.

      We need to prosecute them on the point that it violates Sec. 2, “…preservation of a republican form of government..” We have NO representation in these corporate structures! The elected officials violate their Oaths, the second that they walk into the Office buildings.. that are operating as perpetuities!!

       
      • Harry The Car Geek

        February 6, 2013 at 7:33 PM

        Could you please give an example of how would a complaint look?

        I am willing to participate if you are willing to share your tactical knowledge.

         
      • owlmon

        February 8, 2013 at 3:32 PM

        We have the same loophole in the law here in Canada and I got one of the head officials to admit you have no need….here’s the letter based upon 11.b of the Canada post letter mail regulations..On 8/1/06, PALIWAL, Sanjay wrote:

        Dear minister Belanger:
        I am writing further to the e-mail message you sent to Ms. Moya Greene, President and Chief Executive Officer, regarding the use of the postal code. I regret any confusion that resulted from the e-mail message to Minister Mieczslaw.
        As per the Canada Post Corporation Letter Mail Regulations 11/b, items paid by postage meter or Postall indicia must include the applicable postal code to qualify for standard mail prices, otherwise higher postal rates will apply. For the most part, postage meters and/or postal indicia are used by businesses and other “commercial” organizations.
        The postal code is not required on standard mail if it is mailed using postage stamps.
        Should you wish to mail an item using our Registered Mail service, it should be brought to the post office, addressed but not bearing any meter impression or postal indicia. Postal staff can then process the item for you. The postal code would not be necessary in such a case.
        I appreciated the opportunity to clarify our position on this matter. Please be assured we are committed to providing the best possible postal service, and the postal code will always help in ensuring efficient and timely mail delivery.
        Yours sincerely,

        Sanjay Paliwal
        General Manager, Addressing and Delivery

         
  13. dave

    October 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM

    Al,

    No doubt you would enjoy a discussion with Jerry F. Kirk about the zip code and many other things. Jerry discussed the zip code, jurisdiction, and other topics of interest in a recent interview by Deanna Spingola. He talks about how the zip code is one of several things one must leave behind when coming out of Babylon. If you want to get a idea of what type of guest he would be, you can check out a recent interview by Deanna Spingola (RBN show host) here:

    http://k005.kiwi6.com/hotlink/efl17u06hl/spingola_speaks_2012_07_26.mp3 (commercial free edit)

    Jerry hosts his own show called THE GATHERING OFFERING on RBN’s Studio B every Thursday evening 8-10PM CST. Jerry doesn’t use email but, you can get his phone number in Arkansas from RBN.

     
    • Jose Linares

      October 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM

      Thanks for the link dave! Great listen!

       
  14. Timmy

    October 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM

    I don’t know about this zip stuff… if a canadian happens to be here and writes a letter to you with a zip code, or uses a return address with one, does he become subject to their complete jurisdiction? i think not.

    As far as all the weird personal name formats, I see no such with the founders…. simply Thomas Jefferson; George Washington, et al… so can’t imagine anyone giving that any credence from either side.

    I believe the real connector is the SSN and probably the ALL CAPS name. Notice that they seem to be the common and required elements for essentially everything (commerce). Cutting off the root might be more effective than trying to prune off every little outgrowth and processional effect.

     
    • palani

      October 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM

      @Timmy
      “if a canadian happens to be here and writes a letter to you with a zip code, or uses a return address with one, does he become subject to their complete jurisdiction”

      Should you volunteer into a plane don’t be surprised to find you must obey the rules (laws?) of that plane.

      In the process of obtaining an apostile on a birth certificate I was told I had to have a drivers license or other state issued ID but if I didn’t a utility bill or mortgage document would be sufficient. I already had a certified copy of the same birth certificate with me but that wasn’t sufficient to issue another copy (just not the banknote certificate). The things they were asking for established my RESIDENCY in a commercial plane of existence. Use of the zip code in a pinch will establish that the clock is ticking on this thing called residence.

       
      • Jose Linares

        October 6, 2012 at 8:08 AM

        Palani, could you please share with me lead/links to read regarding RESIDENCY?

        Thanks in advance!

         
  15. Jose Linares

    October 4, 2012 at 1:38 AM

    Before figuring out who you are the Codes seem very confusing. But look at this like this:

    1. You have the sovereign States. 50 States of the Union.

    2. You have the sovereign Federal government.

    3. You have the municipal Federal government, for example in Washington D.C.

    Does someone born on Washington D.C. have the same rights as someone born on one of the 50 individual states? Do your research.

    Look at this article:

    http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/usax3.html

     
    • Jose Linares

      October 4, 2012 at 1:56 AM

      IGEOGRAPHICAL DEFINITIONS AND CONVENTIONS
      http://sedm.org/SampleLetters/DefinitionsAndConventions.htm

       
    • Donald

      October 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM

      Jose Linares
      Re: You have the municipal Federal government, for example in Washington D.C (your comment).

      We also have the municipal State government.(my comment)

      IF the following is of interest, I will bend over backwards to find the cite. At least one Court said:

      “The tyranny in the American system of government begins with the acts & actions of the municipal authorities.”

      This is what at least one court said. I remember the phrase,but I don’t remember “what court” said

      it,BUT, I know I can find it.This is an admission that we do have tyranny & the governments are

      tyrants,tyrannical governments, both State & Federal.

       
    • Donaldo

      October 5, 2012 at 2:21 AM

      Jose Linares

      You ask: “Does someone born on Washington D.C. have the same rights as someone born on one of the 50 individual states? Do your research.

      If you,Jose Linares were born in WA D.C. would YOU, Jose, have a problem? I was not born ON any State OR born ON Washington D.C. SO, I guess I really have a problem, right?

       
      • pop de adam

        October 5, 2012 at 7:27 AM

        Donaldo-

        “in” or “on” “this state” or “the state”?

        If someone tries to find the definition of “state” for this manner of discussion, the easiest one translates to “condition”, perhaps “status”. Most people don’t really give it another thought, but this is often an adjective missing the noun it should be descriptive of.

         
    • palani

      October 6, 2012 at 6:22 PM

      @Jose Linares
      “could you please share with me lead/links to read regarding RESIDENCY?”

      Jose
      I have few links. Res Ident is a thing identified. A plane is mentioned once in the supreme court case Ponzi vs Fessenden circa 1921. The supremes do not define plane yet can determine that the federal plane and state plane were separate. This might have been true at the time but is not true now.

      Now whether you are in a plane or not is a matter for you to declare. You might declare by your actions or by your words either written or spoken. One action that might place you in a particular plane is accepting mail addressed in one manner or another. By your actions you testify either for yourself or against yourself.

      One thing that is certain though. De non apparentibus et non existntibus eadem est ratio. The reason is the same respecting things which do not appear, and those which do not exist. If you are charged with being in one plane when you are in another then remember that he who asserts is the one who must prove not he who denies. If they cannot prove you are in any particular plane then maybe your existence in the plane is in question. Residency is identifying you in a plane.

       
      • Don

        October 7, 2012 at 4:42 PM

        Palani
        You say: “Residency is identifying you in a plane.”
        Does this include, American Airlines?

         
  16. MIKE

    October 4, 2012 at 4:54 AM

    New English Gematria result in today.

    THE ZIP CODE = 666

    http://www.gematrix.org/?word=the+zip+code

    Is the Mark of the Beast more akin to a good brainwashing from adolescence.

     
  17. Geoff Dee

    October 4, 2012 at 7:35 PM

    Why debate this mute point? These laws only apply to persons, not man.

    God is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11).

     
    • Don

      October 5, 2012 at 2:30 AM

      Geoff Dee
      @God is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11).

      Very funny !! You must have a degree in theology. Get out here on the front lines & out of your ivory tower.

       
      • pop de adam

        October 5, 2012 at 6:30 AM

        “So you have said.” *

        *said Jesus to Pontius.

         
  18. Jose Linares

    October 4, 2012 at 11:22 PM

    I was wondering, after the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision could not the Federal Government just Naturalized the former negro slaves?

     
    • pop de adam

      October 5, 2012 at 6:41 AM

      This is a good point, if it were so, there would not be “incorporation doctrine”, so perhaps there was ulterior motive at work. If someone is already part of this “Order”, why add this to the “terms” or “oath”? What changed? And if someone is not part of this “Order” or “Society” why would someone outside of it care? It would have no bearing on these “outsiders”.

      “order, society, citizenship or incorporation” in regards to the 14th amendment.

       
      • Don

        October 6, 2012 at 12:23 AM

        pop de adam

        Jose Linares,wrote the following words. I just cut & pasted his words. I did not write them.

        Jose, wrote:”Does someone born on Washington D.C. have the same rights as someone born on one of the 50 individual states? Do your research.”

        Maybe I do wrong by cutting & pasting,but at least it hopefully helps me from having anyone else say that he/she did not say what I said he/she,said. Confusing, ain’t it? I just cut & paste what you, & others say/write, & if there is anything mispelled in what I cut & paste, I’m usually the one that gets chewed out, not the one who is the real author. Oh well. I have to give others something to chew on.

        pop de adam, I really like you & I sincerely mean this. I feel in my heart you are kind & gentle. I try to be, but I must admit I do get madder than a wet hen at some of the “know it all’s.” Will you allow me to be your friend, or at least try to be?

         
    • Don

      October 5, 2012 at 8:52 PM

      To: Jose Linares

      You ask: “I was wondering, after the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision could not the Federal Government just Naturalized the former negro slaves? ”

      The answer is: FEDZILLA does whatever turns their crank.

       
      • pop de adam

        October 6, 2012 at 3:26 PM

        -Don

        I wouldn’t reply to the comments if I didn’t think at some level we are all friendly at least.

        The Feds can kick me out of their club/society if they wish, but no where in their authority/by-laws have I seen geographic expulsion expressed. I suppose you could attempt such using “necessary powers” or “other needful rules”, and I am not certain about those either.

        They often exhibit a two mindedness or dicotomy when attempting to explain their authorities. On on hand they describe the U.S. as a geographic place, a body of laws or finally a people. Geography has no voice and therefore can make no complaints. A body of law has no voice. A people are an entirety, sometimes thought to be unanimous and complete. But these people often call for elections and voting, so these are not people, but are peoples. If these are a people, how can a single one be singled out without destroying it’s unanimousness. Of couse this would probably all be deemed frivlous by them, but then again that would also not be in their interests. So it is only considered frivlous when forwarded by people but not when the “system” does it. It doesn’t seem so impartial to me.

        I like to think the reason the First Amendment was forwarded and accepted, was religion and government share a lot in common. The people are asked to believe it, if it is trustworthy, to have faith in it, even when it shares in the same defects as its followers. Given authority where it is competant to be granted it. People here in the U.S. or America if you wish, have many differing religions and are free to choose one perhaps many if they wish and not prohibited from such by the others, some even choose none. However this religion known as government attempts to negate this choice by negating all challengers. It is rather strange that peoples will point to this amendment under a government authority to assert authority on religion, those who create churchs probably do it without even realizing they are doing it when asking for religous “exemption” or “non-profit” status. If there was no “freedom of religion” or “freedom of faith and authority”, what you might be left with is “religious tyranny” or a “theocracy”, or simply tyranny.

        -pop de adam

         
  19. pop de adam

    October 5, 2012 at 12:14 AM

    If Erie v. the Railroad established the idea that the Fed gov could only make decisions based upon the lesser courts of the states, then they stand by the idea of Padelsford and Fay and company vs. the Mayor and Alderman of Savanah. The constitution can only apply to the government.

    Feds have a serious problem they don’t represent anyone but themselves.

     
    • Don

      October 5, 2012 at 7:07 PM

      To: pop de adam

      You say: “Feds have a serious problem they don’t represent anyone but themselves.”

      They don’t seem to have a serious problem to me. They are getting along just fine,NOW, at present.

      BUT, they are going to have a RUDE AWAKENING PROBLEM somewhere down the line.

       
    • pop de adam

      October 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM

      .pardon me-

      I suppose you could attempt such using “necessary powers” or “other needful rules”, and I am not certain about those either.

      I meant “they”:

      I suppose they could….

      -pop de adam

       
  20. H1

    October 5, 2012 at 6:30 PM

    I often see a lot of people spending a ton of time and effort to prove their status. But why are you proving your innocence instead of making them prove your “guilt”? Make them prove EVERYTHING. Who you are, the definitions of each and every word they are using (since they are speaking legal, and we only hear and comprehend English), etc etc. The second you answer a question your tit is in a ringer. You don’t know what they are asking, so have them clarify it. I personally do not understand “Legal” so I cannot answer their question.

    Ego gets in the way of things, and causes our mouths to open and quickly say things that gets us into trouble. So STFU. Let them to the talking, and make them define everything. Keep lobbing the ball back over the net to their side for them to drop.

    But if you think you are going to start talking and testifying your way out of trouble, you deserve what you get.

     
    • Don

      October 5, 2012 at 6:59 PM

      H1
      re: Your message of/on October 5, 2012 at 6:30 PM

      You are either another ivory tower instructor or living under a rock. Get out here on the FRONT LINES WHERE THE REAL WAR IS. GET SOME REAL EXPERIENCE. Either get out of your ivory tower or crawl out from under your ROCK & FIRE AWAY. Then you can tell, at least me,where I am wrong.

      Your comments are worthless & useless to those who apply no will but their own. If you know so much,tell me who “they” are. I doubt if you even understand that, HOWEVER, I may be WRONG about this last statement. I’ll “fessup” if I am.

       
    • Don

      October 6, 2012 at 1:27 AM

      H1
      How many times have you been arrested for a victimless so called criminal offense,taken immediately to jail,& days later or whenever they get damn good & ready, escort you to the “magistrate” in an orange jail jumpsuit, with leg irons & handcuffs on? And you, H1 say,make them prove your guilt !! YOU ARE GUILTY FROM THE TIME OF THE SO CALLED ARREST!! If you ask the kidnapping reprobate, excuse me, if you ask the arresting officer: Officer, what is your probable cause for placing me under arrest, the ruthless selfmade reprobate traitiorous bastard, excuse me, the officer just doing his/her job, says I’m arresting you probably cause I want too STFU.

       
  21. H1

    October 5, 2012 at 7:28 PM

    “THEY” is anyone making a claim against you. I don’t care if it’s your mother, a Prosecutor, Cop, TSA “agent”, whoever. If you do not question them, they use their presumptions against you. Ask them what their presumptions are. When you start asking questions they back off almost every time. Their presumptions IN COURT are one of your main enemies. You do not question anything so it’s presumed to be true. Question EVERYTHING, admit NOTHING.

    The first thing in Court that happens is they ask if you are “JOHN DOE” and you answer. Why are you answering? Is it John Doe, JOHN DOE, JON Dough, etc etc. Verbally how do you know which one he’s asking for? Are you answering as the one that is accused, the one they have jurisdiction over? Why are you testifying against yourself you idiot? STFU.

    But the mindset of your proving innocence is part of the problem. You can’t prove innocence, nor can they prove guilt, so MAKE THEM. If you just stand there while they make accusations, or answer their questions and put yourself in a box due to your answers, that’s exactly what they want. Flip the role, go on the offensive, YOU start asking questions of them. Show them their laws/rules and make them prove their case. Make them prove EVERYTHING, including who you are. You can make life really rough for them if you stop giving them evidence to use against you.

    You can attack me all you want, but if you do not see the difference you are in fact a well indoctrinated slave that was well trained.

     
    • Don

      October 5, 2012 at 7:53 PM

      You are still in your ivory tower or living under a rock or you would not be saying what you are.

      How many times have you been in court,OR do you have paperwork filed & made a matter of public record that you send to “them” that keeps “them” off your back & out of your hair? Either answer these 2 questions or YOU STFU.

       
    • Timmy

      October 5, 2012 at 7:55 PM

      @H1: I tend to agree with you in principle. That seems to me to be the right mindset. Would apply also to most everything. Personally, I didn’t consent to my birth certificate, SS application, and many other things. So they should be fairly easily defeated… it would seem. Consent seems to be at the core, as it must all be voluntary. They do seem to be basing everything in commerce, which would mean contracts, which would require consent.

       
      • Don

        October 5, 2012 at 8:20 PM

        Timmy.

        I see you have had a lot of “eyeball to eyeball” contact with “THEM” also, by your message to H1. You & H1 should get along just fine.

        I think I know what the “H” stands for in H1.It’s a 9 letter word,& “1” fits nicely. I will not dispute that, so far at least, from his ivory tower or living under a rock comments. We have to come out from under the rock before we can see the light.

        Your comments of: “That seems to me….. & it would seem & Consent seems to be & they do seem to be, says a lot about YOUR front line experience too, just like H1’s front line experience.

         
  22. Don

    October 5, 2012 at 10:16 PM

    It looks like STFU H1 has STFU.
    I, Don, don’t know what STFU means, for sure,but being that H1 repeatedly said this to me, I’m using H1’s own lingo & mainly for the purpose of saying something to H1, that H1 will have no trouble comphrending/understanding.

     
    • Timmy

      October 6, 2012 at 5:21 PM

      @Don,

      I don’t see how hostility serves this forum. Demanding that others answer your questions?? Civilized men can have rational discussion and even spirited debate without ad hominem attacks. (a prime tactic of the enemy I might add) Your bitter and biting remarks display your state of mind and heart.

      My comments addressed H1’s ideas as he stated them here. I don’t know him/her or anything about him. My “seem” statements are in humility; I don’t presume to know much of anything. I’m exploring ideas here. Wisdom tells me to keep my ass and assets secure and to proceed with caution when “they” control the courts, jails, cops and media. I proceed with caution and I have plenty of “front line” experience. You have no idea what I’m doing in my life or what I have done in the past.

      Your choices are yours. I don’t know what they are, or judge you for them and frankly don’t understand why you appoint yourself as judge over others for their choices. A very bad sign in any case… and very dangerous, if you believe the Master.

      I like the fact that Al proceeds from a place of peace, rationality and abundant caution. He has paid a high price in the past, and I imagine he would be the first to say that he may not have taken the optimal course, if he could do it again. But I don’t know. He can speak for himself.

      I think my point is to direct any anger and aggression at the appropriate parties. Most anyone on here is much more your friend than enemy.

      May you find peace and calm in the storm.

       
  23. Don

    October 6, 2012 at 6:37 PM

    Timmy,
    You needed to send your comment to H1. HE IS THE ONE who got hostile with me. He said to me,STFU. I did not know for sure what it meant & it is very possible I still don’t know. BUT, I believe what is good for the goose is good for the gooseE. So in your opinion it’s ok for him to get hostile with me, but you disapprove of me just returning to him what he said to me? I did say that you two would get along just fine, didn’t I? Where did I ask YOU,Timmy, to answer anything? Did I tell YOU to STFU? You will be lying if you said I did. Who are the “OTHERS” you say I demanded to answer my questions? Actually, I was on your side & sticking up for you because I saw that you were putting at least some degree of faith in H1’s advice. I have had more than enough front line experience to know his advice “SOUNDS GOOD” but when you get on the front lines of actual battle, following his advice will only make it worse. So, Timmy go ahead & learn the hard way,how cruel,barbaric & ruthless your real enemy is.

    IF anyone else besides H1 is reading this message to Timmy, what follows is what I posted & it is what Timmy did not like. Just keep in mind that H1 told me to STFU.This was my response to H1

    You are still in your ivory tower or living under a rock or you would not be saying what you are.
    How many times have you been in court,OR do you have paperwork filed & made a matter of public record that you send to “them” that keeps “them” off your back & out of your hair? Either answer these 2 questions or YOU STFU.

    About all I can say Timmy,is,keep close to Alfred. He is honest & straightford but not so much so that he will tell you,or anyone for that matter to STFU. Palani, is another good source to follow. So is Jerry Lee, & Jose Linares

    By the way, Timmy,I believe if you had been alive & were with Yashaua(Jesus) when he turned over the stone money tables & threw single handily ALL the money changers out of the temple, you probably could have persuaded him not to commit such a hostile act. If H1 was there with both of you, no doubt H1 would have told you to STFU.

    I will appreciate it,Timmy,if you do not respond to this message. I am not asking you to answer any questions,either. And the good news is, you don’t need to be concerned about me sending YOU anymore messages, I promise you, I will not do that. I do not want to confuse you with anymore facts. Still, May the Creator of heaven & Earth protect & bless you as you yield to him & to the degree you yield to him.

     
  24. Edward-Jay-Robin

    October 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM

    On 8/1/06, PALIWAL, Sanjay wrote:
    Dear Minister Belanger:
    I am writing further to the e-mail message you sent to Ms. Moya Greene, President and Chief Executive Officer, regarding the use of the postal code. I regret any confusion that resulted from the e-mail message to Minister Mieczslaw.
    As per the Canada Post Corporation Letter Mail Regulations, items paid by postage meter or postal indicia must include the applicable postal code to qualify for standard mail prices, otherwise higher postal rates will apply. For the most part, postage meters and/or postal indicia are used by businesses and other “commercial” organizations.
    The postal code is not required on standard mail if it is mailed using postage stamps.
    Should you wish to mail an item using our Registered Mail service, it should be brought to the post office, addressed but not bearing any meter impression or postal indicia. Postal staff can then process the item for you. The postal code would not be necessary in such a case.
    I appreciated the opportunity to clarify our position on this matter. Please be assured we are committed to providing the best possible postal service, and the postal code will always help in ensuring efficient and timely mail delivery.
    Yours sincerely,

    Sanjay Paliwal
    General Manager, Addressing and Delivery

     
  25. mr jenkins

    October 10, 2012 at 8:12 PM

    follow the blue letter links, especially the several other territories, i found this interesting as its getting harder to distinguish real history from terms of art!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

     
    • palani

      October 11, 2012 at 9:37 AM

      If artificial boundaries that exist in the mind of man are worth discussing then natural boundaries should be of interest as well.. http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm

       
      • Jose Linares

        October 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM

        Palani:

        What is your point with that EPA map?

        I always seem to chase ghosts when I look up your stuff.

        Why always so fking cryptic?

        Just come out and say it, people need the help.

         
      • Don

        October 13, 2012 at 1:10 PM

        palani,
        @natural boundaries should be of interest as well.

        “Natural boundaries” are now REGIONS. The POWERS that be have made”natural boundaries” REGIONS,via their never ending “Reconstruction Acts.” The TRUTH does not matter to them. They have the POWER to do whatever they want to. Right v. wrong doesn’t matter to them.

         
  26. palani

    October 11, 2012 at 12:38 PM

    Jose
    Point … natural boundaries are only changed by man with great difficulty. Watersheds are natural boundaries. Not only that but the watersheds west of the Mississippi river were what were puchased from the French. Before land patents were issued treaties had to be engaged with the indians. The land acquired by the treaties were what were surveyed and sold. The watersheds remain intact as federal zones. In fact, the ancient empires of the middle east were established by watersheds making the topic of great interest. When you establish yourself by act or deed within one of man’s artificial boundaries you grant jurisdiction to the government over that area. When you counter a claim that you are within one jurisdiction or another with a claim that you are within a watershed over which local government has no authority … well, that web site I gave gives some proof of your claim.

    Cryptic enough?

     
    • Jose Linares

      October 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

      Palani, thank you for your gracious reply.

      Let me see if I get this, – Those operating through government are using implied jurisdiction to trick the ignorant into the government zone of authority.

      So… We have to know where we stand so as not to be dragged into a zone that is inimical to our own interest? Correct so far?

      What about jurisdictions that are not related to geography but more to the conceptual level, like political and legislative concerns?

      Hmm.. I think I am beginning to comprehend, yes geographical boundaries would apply… but if they have laid an overlay with very similar names to places…???

       
      • Don

        October 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

        Hello, dear ones,Jose Linares & Palani.

        “Regions & Zip codes are bed partners. It’s one hand scratching the other. We have States,in name only. It’s the picture within the picture. NINE (9) REGIONS.

         
    • Don

      October 11, 2012 at 3:40 PM

      For palani

      The answer,it appears,is,the modulus of elasticity of the intellectual capacity of at least some
      minds like mine (Heaven forbid) is insufficient to comphrend some of the information given which is the factor by which a logarithm of a number to one base is multiplied to obtain the logarithm of the number to a new base which equals absolute value. I know you “agree” so no response is need. Bless you !!

       
  27. palani

    October 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

    Declared jurisdiction rather than implied. You are the one who declares the jurisdiction by your actions. All political boundaries are imaginary … created by man. Most would not tend to question the authority of one who is exercising arrest powers or from whence these powers originate. You recognize the artificial boundaries of such legal fictions as counties, townships, villages, cities and even states. The world is entering the age of Aquarius. Stand on your doorstep and pour a water vessel onto the ground. Which river will that water end up in?

     
    • Don

      October 11, 2012 at 2:53 PM

      @Which river will that water end up in?

      The Potomac river, the one flowing by D.C.

       
      • palani

        October 11, 2012 at 5:17 PM

        State boundaries were laid out so access to the sea is possible. The District of Columbia was established not only ON the Potomac river but IN that river as well.

         
      • Edward-Jay-Robin

        October 11, 2012 at 6:48 PM

        Gaining agreement to ones actions and intent is prime in pre-determining the actions of those who wish to assume you one of their submitted corporate dead that their dead lets make money off the godless, code rules and statutes apply to…A corporation dead.Period..No argument! They assume your dead to as you registered with them..They assume everyone is under their power unless you take away that assumption by private agreement……For those with fertile souls they will refer to the age old wisdom..Matthew 5:25 18:15-20…Let he who disputes the wisdom of these words put forth their superior method….Romans 16:17-20..2 Peter 2:3

         
    • Don

      October 11, 2012 at 6:14 PM

      To:Palani,or, anyone,

      @You are the one who declares the jurisdiction by your actions

      So, when I am using my unregistered,unlicensed (no guhmunt plates) “pickup truck” to go from

      point A to point B, I am giving notice,by this action,to the hiway bandits, e.g. State Police, City

      Police, Sheriff deputies, that I am declaring they have jurisdiction to “pull me over” for not having

      State issued government plates? I won’t get into what is asked for,by the “revenue raiser” after

      he/she gets up to the open window of my pickup truck,e.g. driver license,and all that goes along

      with that, but I am also bewildered as to why people avoid answering my question as asked above.

      There are many people “out there” who have all the answers to everything but I only get

      responses to what I say, & practically no response to what I ask

       
  28. palani

    October 11, 2012 at 6:34 PM

    “I am declaring they have jurisdiction to “pull me over” for not having State issued government plates?”
    Why did you stop? What actions did you take when you stopped? What was your demeanor? Did you argue or present some excuse? Or did you say “I am sorry” and ask forgiveness? Did you genuflect?

    You are the one to grant jurisdiction. Just how did you go about it?

     
    • Edward-Jay-Robin

      October 11, 2012 at 7:07 PM

      your not removing their assumption, that cars with no plates are commercial drivers breaking the law..your allowing them to assume your subject to their statutes. Get the private agreement to the facts..Can the dead have authority over the living? Ask Don if he disputes a corporation is dead..Ask him where the contract is that places you under the jurisdiction of the dead..Ask why he think excercising your faith to a private man, to take away his assumption, your bowing to a false god, is wrong? Ask if any US government employee can intimidate you to violate your faith in God’s laws over mans. Ask him to quote the case that states you can be thrown in jail for exercising your faith in harming no one…Not the dead fiction title they hold in all caps obituary style form, No! But you the living man who has private agreement with the private men with the vampire mask on. The private agreement strips them of the assumptive contract mask…Try asking any employee if it is their intent to cause you to violate God’s commands…Get me his or her number if you as that will make quite the youtube…Blessings upon knowing faith over ego has faith on top every time,,, abeit the bruised ego will be complaining voiciferously

       
      • Don

        October 11, 2012 at 9:13 PM

        Edward-Jay-Robin
        @your not removing their assumption

        Oh! Is that it? Is that right? You are assuming a lot yourself.

        @Can the dead have authority over the living?
        No, they don’t need authority,they have the power. They do what they do by might,not right.

        Here is a court excerpt to show what I’m trying to say. Regarding two questions, the court said:

        “The second (question) is whether the injunction, even if invalid, insulates Defendant from a contempt citation for its wilful violation.” (Think about this. How do you willfully violate something invalid? They have a way & many ways they say we can violate an invalid made without authority order. Read on.

        Having determined the district court “lacked “authority” to issue its injunction, we must now decide whether that order was enforceable, nonetheless, by the court’s contempt power.

        DID YOU CATCH THAT!!!?? CONTEMPT POWER !!! Read on.

        The finding of contempt is affirmed because the district court had jurisdiction, and, pursuant to the collateral bar rule, Defendant ignored that injunction at his peril. (End of court remarks/opinion)

        When you have 30 days to appeal & you are arrested for “not obeying the invalid made without authority order” a few days later,after the the invalid made without authority order is first made/issued,is absolute TYRANNY !!!

        What the higher court is saying is,the lower court had jurisdiction to issue an invalid order even if a higher court later ruled the lower court did not have authority to issue what the higher court deemed to be invalid. AND, the highest court in the state said the lower court’s invalid order was enforceable NONETHELESS because of the “lower court’s CONTEMPT POWER.

        Well thank you very much. This is more proof that they ARE here to help us. Anyone who doesn’t see that is indeed BLIND as A BAT

         
      • Edward-Jay-Robin

        October 12, 2012 at 11:18 PM

        Some folks like to argue as they are bored others do it cause they think their smart others do as of stupidity,,,,some like to gain agreements as that is in honor as to assert that almost all men herein are registered is a very good assumption…Agreed??? try vital stats or your SSN number..oh and other argue cause that is all they know how to do..

         
      • Don

        October 12, 2012 at 11:41 PM

        Edward-Jay-Robin,
        # 1, are your words verbatim. It is a cut & paste.

        1.-YOU say:”Some folks like to argue as they are bored others do it cause they think their smart others do as of stupidity,,,,some like to gain agreements as that is in honor as to assert that almost all men herein are registered is a very good assumption…Agreed??? try vital stats or your SSN number..oh and other argue cause that is all they know how to do..”

        Thank you,Edward-Jay-Robin. I was not aware of anything you said. I’m learning a lot from you. Saying thanks seems so shallow. How may I send you a donation.The Information you share is valuable especially what you say,written above. PLEASE !! I need to pay you for sharing this with me.I especially like the word,Assumption. I think the more we assume the smarter we become.

         
    • Don

      October 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM

      @What actions did you take when you stopped? What was your demeanor?

      I have to be honest about this as I try to be about anything. I say/ask. “Hello Officer,how may I help you” ? Believe it or not, I KNOW I am not going to get anywhere trying to “educate” the revenue raiser. He/she stops me because there is something “ODD” about my affidavit of “ID” I use on my, as THEY call it,”Homemade License Plate.”

      @genuflect. I don’t know what this means? So, I cannot answer.

      @You are the one to grant jurisdiction. Just how did you go about it?

      I went about it, granting “jurisdiction,” by filing affidavits in the county clerk recorders office, of “Positive Identification”e.g. when I was born,where I was born,my parents,their parents & on & on, where they(my Mother & Father”) were born,when they were born & on & on. Grand Parents, Great Grandparents, Great Great Great & on parents

      I also “granted “them” jurisdiction” by filing an affidavit of facts opossing foreign “VENUE.” & other affidavits to tedious to mention. I sealed the “granting “them” jurisdiction” by sending them the made a matter of public record affidavits,at least to every government agency I was aware of. This is how I granted them jurisdiction,& by letting them know in my affidavits that I was anything else but what they assumed me to be,i.e. I did not fit in their mold.

      Now I will see in a moment,my typos,lack of correct punctuation,misspelled words,etc.

       
  29. palani

    October 11, 2012 at 8:43 PM

    “Hello Officer”

    You recognized his authority when you stopped.

    You recognized his authority when you called him “officer”.

     
    • Don

      October 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM

      If no one else responds to your remarks, I am out of here. So,by me saying that much it is highly unlikely you will get any responses for that reason if no other.

      You say:You recognized his authority when you stopped.

      Before, when I did not stop, there was a roadblock set up ahead. I had no choice.Also I have been rammed broadside on my side of the “MOTOR VEHICLE” It Put the MOTOR VEHICLE out of commission. My window was broken, & the “revenue agent” opened my door, jerked me out of the MOTOR VEHICLE slammed me up against the MOTOR VEHICLE & that’s when the lights went out. Literally. As far as you coming down on me for saying Hello Officer, why did you leave out the,”How may I help you” part ?

      I notice you did not say a word about the “affidavits” so it seems you are going to jump on anything you can jump on like a june bug on a duck. I wish you had been with me, & suggested that I not stop. I would have sued you for aiding & abetting criminal activity.

       
      • palani

        October 12, 2012 at 8:27 AM

        @Don
        My previous response was directed at ACTIONS that you performed at the time of the (alleged) incident. [NOTE I SAY ALLEGED BECAUSE I WAS NOT THERE]. Affidavits? Did you offer them as evidence during your trial? That is to say, did you hold up an affidavit while you were in the witness stand under oath and actually have them introduced as exhibits so that the jury could look at them and they could be discussed?

        I like to get to the heart of the matter if possible. I recognize that the judicial system is entirely privately run for profit but they do have rules (of their own … not mine) and they do put some pretty nasty people into boxes when they would otherwise be out there creating havoc out of order. Now maybe they get so used to looking at these chaos people that when they come across a freedom loving people they believe they belong in the same box. Maybe the facts indicated to them that you are a chaos person that needs removal from society or re-direction or psych evaluation or being forcefed mood altering drugs. We’ll probably never really know because your incarceration ultimately ended up paying the mortgage of the guy who slammed you into that “motor vehicle”. He profited and that was all you meant to him, all your words spoken notwithstanding.

         
  30. Don

    October 12, 2012 at 12:20 AM

    Edward-Jay-Robin

    You say: “They assume your dead to as you registered with them.”

    Is that right? HOW & WHEN DID I REGISTER with THEM. You said I registered with them so you must have information to back up your statement. I don’t believe you make statements willy nilly although you most certainly do ASSUME a lot. I just wish I knew how you know I “registered” with them.” What is your fee to tell me that which you know about me that I don’t know? It seems if you don’t answer my question, YOU yourself ARE ONE OF THEM. Otherwise how can you make a statement like that?

     
  31. Anon4fun

    October 12, 2012 at 1:24 AM

    Don:

    It would be great if you got an answer that suddenly put this particular area of mystical complexification on solid ground, but don’t hold your breath. It’s beginning to look like most of the patriot dogma for dummies which clogs up the internet is merely so much BS-artistry designed to put genuine researchers, such as Big Al and a few other posters here, off the track. Anyone who refuses to ground their assertions in publicly available sources, but instead spins out further adventures in magical verbiage as a response, is automatically suspect. As is any otherwise literate person who uses “your” when “you’re” is the correct English, which apparently the Astroturfing Manual, issued internally by the Ministry of Propaganda, instructs employees to do in keeping with Newspeak.

     
    • Don

      October 12, 2012 at 2:34 AM

      Thanks. Anon4fun

      I was discouraged. Thanks for coming to my rescue.

      I cut & paste what others say so I hopefully will not be accused of taking things out of context,etc. Even so, I have received condemnation from a few others about “my” spelling,e.g.,it’s You’re, IDIOT not YOUR, the fact that you can’t even spell proves YOU ARE AN IDIOT. The strange thing is,I don’t recall ever being chastised for my own misspellings.It’s when I cut & paste what others say. When I see what I am cutting & pasting has a misspelled word,I just let it go because I don’t want anyone to think I am “nitpickin” etc.I DO misspell some things. I catch some of them AFTER I “send” my comment. AND, I undoubtedly misspell some words out of ignorance &/or stupidity. I know I am not intelligent but at least I have enough sense to know that. THANKS again.

      P.S Your comments from the start/inception,told & tell me that YOU,Anon4fun, have a “high degree” of “formal education.” I have enough sense to have caught that from the “gitgo.” I am not saying this to “butter you up.” I sincerely mean it.

       
    • Don

      October 12, 2012 at 2:48 AM

      Anon4fun
      Now you stop layin these fitty cent wurds on me, e.g.”complexification.” Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.

       
    • Don

      October 13, 2012 at 2:49 PM

      Anon4fun
      @ Astroturfing Manual
      I may have prepared that manual myself & forgot I am the author. ARE YOU AWAKE YET ?

       
  32. Anon4fun

    October 12, 2012 at 3:12 AM

    Don:

    I’m not a great speller myself. The credit goes to the spell-check built into this browser. And, just to be clear, I’m not nitpicking about anyone not having perfect spelling or grammar either. Really, it’s not that important. What must be exposed though is the phoniness that consistently manages to get a complex piece of nonsense across with studied precision yet somehow can’t seem to avoid making the same basic errors over and over again. Mismatch error.

    Regarding “complexification,” I don’t think that’s really a word, though “your” welcome to be amused by it.

     
    • Don

      October 12, 2012 at 4:06 AM

      What R your a doin up this time of morning four? Go to bed. It’s 2:35 am where I am.
      I knew you were not nitpicking. I spell nitpicking,nitpickin,on purpose, I guess because I am a “hillbilly.”

      You say: “What must be exposed though is the phoniness that consistently manages to get a complex piece of nonsense across with studied precision yet somehow can’t seem to avoid making the same basic errors over and over again.” EXACTLY RIGHT !!
      Re: Mismatch error. EXACTLY RIGHT !! and,

      Regarding “complexification,” I don’t think that’s really a word, though “your” welcome to be amused by it.

      I think it’s a great word. It’s refreshing. It paints a picture. In fact I am going to use it myself instead of what I have been using,e.g., “One mass cycle of confusing events.” I will give you credit when I use it. It helps to save ink & printing costs too !! NOW GO TO BED !!

      P.S. You are aware that the ONLY reason UNalienable was changed to INalienable is simply because the U is twice the size of I, and therefore the I is used instead of U to save ink & printing costs in government paperwork. You already knew that, didn’t you? You would be surprised to know that very few people are aware of this “truth”. You don’t need to thank me for this enlightening knowledge, I will close by saying: Your welcome

       
    • Don

      October 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM

      Anon4fun
      WAKE UP !! Get out of bed !! Let’s continue on what we can do to change things. I promise you I want “lose it” again.

       
  33. Don

    October 12, 2012 at 2:18 PM

    palani
    @all your words spoken notwithstanding.

    Yes,But in a nutshell,here for the umpteenth,excuse me,upteanth time is the reason,at least to me.

    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.”(Robert Bork)

    Here is one of MANY examples.I don’t know if your “license to agree” will agree however

    ROMNEY: “Obama’s health care plan “puts in place an unelected board…..”

    I forget what/which news article I cut the above quote from.

    I have a question for you or anyone else for that matter,& it is not a “fishing question”

    Do you believe the following court excerpt is true?

    “Law of the land,” “due process of law,” and “due course of law” are synonymous terms.” People v. Skinner, 110 P.2d, 41/45; Stoner v. Higginson, 175 A. 527/531

     
  34. palani

    October 12, 2012 at 2:32 PM

    [….“Law of the land,” “due process of law,” and “due course of law” are synonymous terms.” People v. Skinner, 110 P.2d, 41/45; Stoner v. Higginson, 175 A. 527/531 …]

    Things that are similar are not the same.

    If Law is so important to these people then why do they dabble in Equity (and other black arts) all the time?

     
    • Don

      October 12, 2012 at 3:21 PM

      palani
      @ If Law is so important to these people then why do they dabble in Equity (and other black arts) all the time?

      Please give me one example of what you mean by your question.Who are “these people?”
      Maybe I am dabbling in black arts too. If I am, I am unaware of it

      Since this thread is about or should be about the zip code, I have in my possession a letter from Dianne Barnes,U.S.P.S. to, Bill Lee, saying verbatim that the ZIP Code usage is entirely voluntary.
      The letter is dated January 9, 1991.Do you want me to send it to you? If so, I will have to type it all out which will take some time but I will send it if you want me too.

       
    • Don

      October 12, 2012 at 4:51 PM

      palani,
      DARN IT !! You didn’t “bite” woe is me.

      P.S It is impossible, at least for me to present affidavit info when I am in front of 1/2 of a jury(6 persons, individuals, subjects, etc) in a tattered,torn to pieces orange jailsuit (which is against their own law).The only response I gave was: I stand on my made a matter of public record affidavits & this statutory court of record is aware of them, & I have nothing more to say. The 6 person jury found me guilty of driving without a valid driver license, & the other 2 “items.”

       
      • palani

        October 12, 2012 at 5:02 PM

        Non-Assumpsit by way of confession and avoidance … “I did it but so what .. there is no law against it”. They will not allow this plea but the other way to get there is “plead guilty to the facts but not the controversy”. Facts are facts. You had no license. Your point is you did not need a license. Courts view is “these are the elements, you meet all the requirements, so are guilty”.

        I bet you are AWOL from Ft Eustis as well. Are you? Do you have permission to be absent from Ft Eustis? It is up to you to bring up that you are not now in the military, or that you once were but have been discharged. If you don’t bring up your lack of military standing then you stand AWOL as charged.

        I wouldn’t feel bad. Even George Gordon eventually gave up on the drivers license issue and he was (and still is) a tough bird. There is too much control brought through the exercise of the right to travel thru license for ANY case to be won (just my opinion). So I carry my DL under lock and key along with an affidavit that has been notarized that I have said document in my possession. I signed it R.vi Et Armis … R. for Rex (the king), vi Et Armis … under force and arms.

         
    • Don

      October 13, 2012 at 1:33 AM

      Palani,
      If it is not asking too much,will you please send me the definition of equity that you agree with.
      I remember years ago, I came across “a” definition of equity & I thought,THIS is the court I want.

      Palani, I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that you are familar with the following. Please tell me if I am right.

      The fairest young maiden that I ever saw
      Passed by as it started to rain
      We both found a shelter beneath the same tree
      On the banks of the old Pontchartrain.

       
      • palani

        October 13, 2012 at 7:38 AM

        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/equity

        I agree with the following but without further expansion:

        EQUITY: it is a body of law that addresses concerns that fall outside the jurisdiction of Common Law. Equity and the common law represented opposing values in the English legal system. The common law was the creation of a judiciary independent from the Crown. Whereas the common law provided results based on years of judicial wisdom, equity produced results based on the whim of the king’s chancellor.

         
  35. palani

    October 12, 2012 at 3:36 PM

    “these people” … the ones who create dicta to justify their abnormal opinions and to expand their estates.

    I have no doubt the zip code is voluntary. There is no involuntary servitude.

     
    • Don

      October 13, 2012 at 4:03 PM

      palani,
      How do we know if what is written or said, is dicta or dictum? Which of the 2 is the best or are they both like the democrats & republicans, one & the same?

       
    • Don

      October 13, 2012 at 9:18 PM

      Palani,
      No need for you for you to respond to my 2nd question about dicta v. dictum. I went back to my notes from years ago & this is what I wrote re dicta. “dicta is a judge’s editorializing. If I say the same thing the same judge calls it,incoherent rambling specious & spurious.So if I am reading a case and it’s incoherent rambling to me,then I know it’s dictum. If I come across words that make sense, then I know it’s dicta.

       
  36. Edward-Jay-Robin

    October 12, 2012 at 11:58 PM

    use equals submission

     
    • Don

      October 13, 2012 at 12:39 AM

      Edward-Jay-Robin

      I disagree.My problem is,I do not know how to go about volunteering, How do I do that? I like to volunteer for anything & everything that is voluntary. Are there anymore voluntary programs offers,etc.,that you are aware of that I can volunteer for?

       
      • Edward-Jay-Robin

        October 13, 2012 at 1:35 PM

        volunteering your ego to the wind is first as it bites it’s own tongue…Volunteering your wisdom in effective action is also Good, regurgitating timeless knowledge and observable fact is another…volunteering yourself to the set of laws put in place to save us from self destruction and defending them with honor is another thing you can volunteer with and of course volunteering the set of laws better than commandments if you know of them..Blessings

         
  37. Don

    October 13, 2012 at 4:11 AM

    Jose Linares

    You asked Palani: Why always so fking cryptic?

    It’s because Palani is a “Cryptologist.”

     
  38. Don

    October 13, 2012 at 4:21 AM

    Jose,
    Cryptology is always a great word to know. So is ort. Even tho it ort not to be that way. Some people ort not to do some things they do,but they do. I ort not to care but I do

     
    • Adask

      October 13, 2012 at 6:08 AM

      I’m pretty sure that “cryptology” means the the study of “crypts,” tombs, coffins and funeral homes. It also means the study of the Crips (but not the Bloods).

       
      • Jose Linares

        October 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM

        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cryptology
        cryp·tol·o·gy
           [krip-tol-uh-jee] Show IPA
        noun
        1.
        cryptography.

        —–>

        cryp·tog·ra·phy
           [krip-tog-ruh-fee] Show IPA
        noun
        1.
        the science or study of the techniques of secret writing, especially code and cipher systems, methods, and the like. Compare cryptanalysis ( def. 2 ) .
        2.
        the procedures, processes, methods, etc., of making and using secret writing, as codes or ciphers.
        3.
        anything written in a secret code, cipher, or the like.

         
      • pop de adam

        October 17, 2012 at 9:42 AM

        And my secretary is my keeper of secrets.

         
  39. Don

    October 13, 2012 at 5:14 PM

    Jose Linares,
    If your answer was to Brother Alfred, our friend, He knows what “cryptology” means. He was sharing a laugh, at least that is the way I understood his message.

    By the way,do you agree with my “regional outlook” ?

     
    • Adask

      October 13, 2012 at 6:44 PM

      If some of you find my humor to dry to be obvious, just add water.

       
      • Jose Linares

        October 13, 2012 at 7:02 PM

        <— Looking for the keys to the Hoover Dam. :)

         
  40. Don

    October 13, 2012 at 8:29 PM

    Jose Linares

    October 13, 2012 at 7:02 PM

    <— Looking for the keys to the Hoover Dam. :)
    I think I left them in your glove compartment. Look under the white paper.

     
  41. MickeyG

    October 30, 2012 at 6:32 AM

    Read Title 18 section 7. It explaines, in detail, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. It does NOT extend into the several states and says so twice.

     
  42. Don

    October 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM

    Edward-Jay-Robin

    October 13, 2012 at 1:35 PM

    Where is your sense of humor?

     
  43. Don

    October 30, 2012 at 2:19 PM

    MickeyG
    October 30, 2012 at 6:32 AM

    Watch the local news weather forecast & notice how the weather forecaster keeps mentioning “Regions.” What we have in the “Good ol USA” are Regions & IT is ALL “Federal Regional Venue,” under Martial Rule, as showing by the “Executive “Branch:” Flags as displayed in ALL so called Courtrooms.

     
  44. Pastor Brian

    February 8, 2016 at 10:09 AM

    Hi Al, following is a link to some more enlightening info, regarding the Post Office…en-JOY!:

    http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/post_office.html

     
  45. jestine adam

    August 23, 2016 at 4:32 AM

    Valuable suggestions . I Appreciate the points . Does anyone know where I might grab a template a form version to work with ?

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s