RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: Rudy Davis on Dr. Kent Hovind’s upcoming Trial; Obama’s Stealth War on Guns;

24 Feb

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191.

 
285 Comments

Posted by on February 24, 2015 in American Independence Hour, Radio

 

Tags:

285 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Rudy Davis on Dr. Kent Hovind’s upcoming Trial; Obama’s Stealth War on Guns;

  1. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 8:59 PM

    Al
    why not set them straight, they are talking about recusal and they do not even know what the rule is on recusal there is no reason for recusal. How was he railroaded the first time? He had a trial and had all the opportunity to present his defense. However after reading all the transcripts and record it was under the law a criminal operation because he broke the law under that statute as so found by a jury…please please do not have others get in trouble and go to prison as others have by following such foolishness.

     
    • Pesky Nat

      March 9, 2015 at 1:01 AM

      KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR.,
      Why no response from you in reference to the City of Chicago v. Collins case that I PRESENTED to YOU after you SUBMITTED another City of Chicago v. Collins case for ALL to read to make me look like a liar & deceiver? why dat KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR. ??? HUH?? WHY DAT???

       
  2. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 9:09 PM

    You cannot scare the US Attorney Office they already know when they get the indictment they have a case. The new lawyer specializes in prosecuting right wing patriot defenses, that should scare Hovind in making a plea for a lighter sentence otherwise he will never get out of prison. Have you looked at the sentence he can receive if found guilty? That should scare anyone.

     
    • Eric

      February 24, 2015 at 9:44 PM

      @ > That should scare anyone.
      HAHHAHHAHHAHHahahahaha U JUS SCARIN THE U NO WHAT RITE OUTTA ME HAHHAHhaha
      ROFLMYI SCARED HINDQUARTERS OFFFFFFFFFFFFF ROFLMYIHO HAHHAHhahahahHAHha

       
      • Pesky Nat

        March 13, 2015 at 3:49 AM

        Eric, I think you meant a 6X8 cell, & 48 square feet containing 4 cots. I have been in a few of those myself with literally 3 other Beasts of the field as described in the Holy Bible. You may not believe this, but, it’s true nevertheless. I have NEVER EVER been lawfully arrested & I have truly lost count of the times I have been arrested. Guess it’s part of the price we pay for liberty & freedom.

         
      • Adask

        March 13, 2015 at 7:54 AM

        It’s part of the price we’re called to pay for “willful failure to kiss ass”. Gov-co wants your abject obedience. If you object to being “abject,” you get free room and board at the grey-bar hotel.

         
  3. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 9:12 PM

    Al
    I cannot believe you think a Federal Prison is that good. They have been overcrowded for years, gang riots are constant, lack of hot water is constant, lack of heat is constant in the winter just ask them at Terre Haute IN right now, how about the 300 inmates and 50 staff that have died from Valley Fever in Taft California.

     
    • Adask

      February 24, 2015 at 10:09 PM

      Would you rather spend 1 year in a federal prison or one year in a county jail? Neither is good. Neither is desirable. But I’ve talked to people who’ve done both and they agree that county jail is “hard time” compared to federal prisons.

       
      • Eric

        February 24, 2015 at 10:26 PM

        @ > But I’ve talked to people who’ve done both and they agree that county jail is “hard time” compared to federal prisons
        Absolutely true. 4×8 – 4 feet wide & 8 feet in length,32 square feet with 4 cots & 4 people, excuse me, ANIMALS.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 8, 2015 at 10:37 AM

        My username did not appear when I tried to post so I typed in, Pesky Nat Did not know if message woul post, but it did. Anyway, you say, > The big question is whether this controversy can be settled in court or on the streets; by reason or revolution.
        It may be settled in court for a few rare birds & that’s it. Soooo the only other alternative is obvious.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 13, 2015 at 9:49 PM

        Adask
        March 13, 2015 at 7:54 AM
        @ > It’s part of the price we’re called to pay for “willful failure to kiss ass”. Gov-co wants your abject obedience. If you object to being “abject,” you get free room and board at the grey-bar hotel

        Tell me about it !!! It takes 3 of the agents of Satan to perform a “cavity search” & this is with me being shackled having leg-irons & hand-cuffs with my arms behind my back. I didn’t make anything easy for the Reprobates.

         
  4. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 9:14 PM

    I will tell you under Federal Law him placing lis pendens will cause a new case filing under a 1999 Federal law against doing so that was passed because of the right wing patriot filings that were taking place.

     
    • Adask

      February 24, 2015 at 10:15 PM

      Back in the 1990s, didn’t you use to teach a “right wing patriot” legal reform class. Weekly, if I recall correctly (but maybe bi-weekly). I remember, I used to attend your meetings.

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        February 25, 2015 at 12:26 PM

        I studied got a degree and found out that most of those arguments are baseless and un supported by law. Oh yes I was there.

         
      • Eric

        February 27, 2015 at 4:38 AM

        @ > I used to attend your meetings.
        It’s obvious you did not learn enough to hurt ya. Mp wants to know if you could ever just “like” him enough to allow him to comment again?

         
      • pesky nat

        March 22, 2015 at 11:49 PM

        @ I have no control over WordPress, nor do I want any.

        I fail to see how asking somebody at WordPress if a Reply button can be inserted in each comment area is trying to have control over him/her but apparently you do.I also fail to see how anybody at WordPress would think you are trying to have control over him/her IF you did ask that question Do you think when anybody asks you a question he/she is trying to have control over you? I don’t get it.

         
    • pesky nat

      April 1, 2015 at 8:42 AM

      KENEMORE JR.LAWERNCE
      @ Sorry to hear I touched a nerve but I deal in reality and facts not assumptions and innuendos.

      You do recognize your all caps Identity like all Subjects who are subject to the jurisdiction, aka the “authority” of that” “United States”. I suppose the REVERSAL of the name & surname is of no “sign” ificance but if this true WHY REVERSE IT & WHY ALL CAPS?

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        April 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM

        I do not care if they make my name all caps or lower case it is still me, another Patriot argument that brings up visions of the boogey man.

         
  5. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 9:20 PM

    I cannot believe that they are still making a jurisdiction argument. Every case, District, Appeals have lost that argument what a waste of time argue the right argument based on the law.

     
    • Adask

      February 24, 2015 at 10:13 PM

      I agree that most jurisdiction arguments fail. But that’s often because the arguments aren’t properly made. Jurisdiction is a live issue. If you’re adept you might succeed in that argument. I can believe that, if they’re adept, they’d have good cause to make a jurisdictional argument.

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        February 25, 2015 at 12:25 PM

        If you broke a Statute and they got an indictment there is no jurisdictional argument unless it is in the wrong court, and I am talking about United States District Courts created by statutory law.

         
      • Eric

        February 28, 2015 at 6:39 PM

        To: Alfred Adask,
        @ > I believe that “Person” must first be a man who is one who lives in relation to that perpetual Union as one of the people of one of the States of the Union and/or of “The United States of America”.

        I believe ,e.g., that Andrew Johnson was a man, & one of the people of the U.S.o. A, &, also a person, because of the requirement of Article 2 in the 1787 Constitution whic says, No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 9, 2015 at 12:11 AM

      Mr. KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR
      @ More of that old argument that is un supported by law.
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      MR. KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR it’s More of that old argument that is unsupported by the LAWLESS.

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 9, 2015 at 11:57 AM

        Sorry to hear I touched a nerve but I deal in reality and facts not assumptions and innuendos.

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 12, 2015 at 3:49 PM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      @If you broke a Statute
      It seems more like the Statutes break us. In reality the “law” breaks us rather than we breaking the law. Least this is what it means to me.

       
    • pesky nat

      March 20, 2015 at 2:49 AM

      @Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      @February 25, 2015 at 12:26 PM
      @I studied got a degree and found out that most of those arguments are baseless and un supported by law. Oh yes I was there

      I wonder how many degrees of temperature/HEAT there are in the Lake of FIRE & BRIMSTONE? Anyway, I do believe it is so hot, anybody who goes to that nice & warm & cozy place will not have time to argue & say they have been there, do you? Think I may be right about at least this?

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 20, 2015 at 11:30 AM

        I do not know how many degrees because cripture does not say and I do not care because I am not going to be there.

         
  6. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 9:24 PM

    How is is spiritual warfare when he broke a law or laws…you can make that statement to deflect from the fact that he broke a law.

     
    • Adask

      February 24, 2015 at 10:10 PM

      It can be spiritual warfare if the reason he’s sentence to 10 years when most people are sentence to 2 years, is that he’s an advocate of Creationism.

       
      • Colin

        February 24, 2015 at 10:42 PM

        If you’re interested in whether his sentence tracks other tax evaders/structurers, you might want to ask whether he has access to a copy of his presentence report. It will break down the analysis that lead to his sentence. Normally they’re confidential, but I think defendants have access to their own PSRs. (I’m not 100% positive, it’s been a long time, but I’m pretty sure.) He may not want to share it, since it may include personal data such as a report on his finances, but if he’s willing you’ll be able to see exactly where the sentence comes from.

         
      • Adask

        February 24, 2015 at 11:41 PM

        Hi Colin,

        I found the previous and three more of your comments in the spam file. First time I’ve ever looked in the Spam folder. I have no idea why your comments were treated as spam.

        I marked ’em “not spam” and they are back in the comments section.

        The Hovind case is interesting. I don’t doubt that his first (and now second) defense was/is ineffective.

        But he does attract attention–and inspire controversy. I’m hearing from people who are practically slobbering at the mouth to get their two cents worth said in the Hovind case. You, for example, are back after several months of absence. The Hovind case really does attract attention. Perhaps Creationism really does attract a crowd.

        The difference between Creationism and Evolution does lie at the heart of the conflict between “constitutionalists” and the the current governmental system. At bottom, virtually every “constitutionalist” would agree that we are “men made in God’s image”. Government on the other hand would (much like former Nazi Germany) presume we are all animals.

        One big difference between our government and that of the former Nazi Germany is that the Nazis thought only some people (mostly Jews) were “animals”. Our government thinks all people are “animals”.

        Curiously, our government started to define all people as “animals” in the A.D. 1906 Pure Food & Drug Act. The Nazi’s didn’t define the Jews to be “untermenschen” (animals) until 24 years later in the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. Thus, our government was committing acts of what is now called “genocide” against all of the American people 24 years before the Nazis started to lay the legal foundation for concentration camps and the “Holocaust”.

        The Nazis are gone, as is their overt genocide against the Jews. But the US government is still committing genocide against all of the American people–even against government officers, officials, agents and employees–by still defining us all as “animals”. If my claim of genocide seems hyperbolic, visit GenocideWatch.net and look for the article “10 Stages of Genocide”. The 4th Stage is:

        “4. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. The majority group is taught to to regard the other group as less than human, and even alien to their society. They are indoctrinated to believe that “ We are better off without them.” The powerless group can become so depersonalized that they are actually given numbers rather than names, as Jews were in the death camps. They are equated with filth, inpurity, and immorality. Hate speech fills the propaganda of official radio, newspapers, and speeches.

        “To combat dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies. Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide should be banned from international travel and have their foreign finances frozen. Hate radio stations should be jammed or shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished.”

        Creationism teaches that we are all “made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals (creatures not made in God’s image)”. Therefore, as a Jew or Christian, I can’t be treated as an “animal” without violating my freedom of religion. One of the advantages of being a man made in God’s image is that I can’t be murdered with impunity. See Genesis 9:6.

        But as “animals” we can all be killed at any time just like a cow, pig or chicken.

        More, the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in our Declaration of Independence are granted only to “men” (made in God’s image)–not animals. The government’s primary duty to secure the God-given, unalienable Rights is only in relation to “men” (made in God’s image)–not animals.

        If government can establish that the American people are just “animals,” the government will have no obligation to recognize any claim to unalienable Rights and will have no object to “secure” those God-given rights.

        I strongly believe that that’s why government defines us as “animals”–in order to strip us of our standing to claim God-given, unalienable Rights.

        Kent Hovind understands Creationism better than almost any other living man. He has a good grasp of the theory of evolution. But I don’t think he even now fully understands the political and spiritual implications of the Creationism/Evolution controversy. Our governmnent needs Evolution as an established concept to treat us like animals, strip of our standing to claim God-given unalienable Rights, and rule as the people’s masters rather than serve as the people’s public servants.

        Kent was doing a good job of leading American back towards understanding and valuing Creationism.

        I strongly suspect that such leadership may have been deemed intolerable by “The Powers That Be” and justified taking Kent out of circulation for 8 years and perhaps taking him out of circulation for another 20.

        Perhaps we should make a movie. Spiritual warfare, hmm? What could be more exciting?

        Al

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 12:46 PM

        Thanks, I appreciate it.

        “I strongly believe that that’s why government defines us as “animals”–in order to strip us of our standing to claim God-given, unalienable Rights.”

        This is just not so. Parts of the law consider humans a kind of animal as a convenience, for example so that people can’t get away with selling dangerous products to humans by claiming they’re only for animal use. Nothing about those laws has anything to do with defining you as an animal in order to strip you of your rights. in other words, the law considers humans to be a kind of animal–the kind with human rights. Defining a person as homo sapiens, part of Kingdom Animalia, doesn’t affect those rights at all.

        Are you aware that Linnaeus, who founded the taxonomic system we used today, also called humans part of Kingdom Animalia (that is, animals)? He was a creationist, too. The designation doesn’t have anything to do with rights. It’s just biology.

         
      • Toland

        February 27, 2015 at 4:50 AM

        @Colin “Are you aware that Linnaeus, who founded the taxonomic system we used today, also called humans part of Kingdom Animalia (that is, animals)? He was a creationist, too. The designation doesn’t have anything to do with rights. It’s just biology.”

        Good point. The available definitions of “animal” cover a lot of territory, and many of these definitions are perfectly consistent with someone being an “animal” and also being a man made in God’s image with inalienable rights.

        Thus, it requires an actual argument from facts and logic to establish whether or not the MOOA legislature’s intended meaning of “animal” is problematic. Meanwhile, simply making an assumption and running with it looks contrived and unconvincing.

         
    • Eric

      February 25, 2015 at 8:13 PM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      @ > I am talking about United States District Courts created by statutory law.

      What is the difference between a United States District Court, v. District Court of the United States? are there purposes for one & not the other? If so, can you briefly say what the difference is? Thanks.

       
    • Anthony Clifton

      February 27, 2015 at 8:29 AM

      when did “Jewish” lies become “Law” ?

      specifically…was it before 1865 or after 1933..?

      http://mondoweiss.net/2015/02/aipac-kristol-pressure

       
  7. russ

    February 24, 2015 at 9:30 PM

    Lawernce, you act like quite the expert. What makes Hovind a “taxpayer” from what you have read in his case?

     
    • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

      February 24, 2015 at 9:33 PM

      He is a taxpayer from reading his first case and this second case has nothing to do with being a taxpayer, however from personal experience everyone has lost that argument with the Federal government and have gone to prison by the droves.

       
      • Pesky Nat

        March 11, 2015 at 11:49 PM

        KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR.
        YOU ASK, > is it necessary to use this old case law that is no longer good law

        KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR. It IS necessary to use old case law that PROVES at one time things that were regarded as ABSOLUTE RIGHTS are TODAY mere PRIVILEGES granted for a FEE by GOV-CO. Now, WHY do you submit a case that is not the case I was referring To? To make me look like a deceiver & a liar? WAS that NECESSARY? Why was that necessary? Why don’t you answer me?

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 12, 2015 at 10:35 AM

        Sorry about the wrong case interesting two cases same name but you are not a deceiver I am looking at this other case and will respond for sure

         
      • pesky nat

        March 22, 2015 at 11:25 PM

        KENEMORE JR LAWERNCE
        @Obviously you do not know how to read case law.

        What is OBVIOUS is that when I present cases that say what IS a right & NOT A PRIVILEGE, You SUBMIT cases that say just the opposite. What is OBVIOUS is, YOU OBVIOUSLY want US MORONS to have PRIVILEGES GRANTED BY GOV-CO & NOT ANY ABSOLUTE RIGHTS. BUT YOU ARE A LICENSED ATTORNEY FOR GOSH SAKES, SO IT FIGGERS. NOW, LEGAL BEAGLE, KENEMORE JR LAWERNCE, I don’t care if the following IS DICTA OR DICTUM. I LIKE WHAT IS SAID.
        Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all these requirements that are known as the rules of the road. The right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen. While the tyranny of the American system of government very largely consists in the action of the municipal authorities, this right has not yet been questioned or attempted to be abridged. There can be no question, then, but that a citizen riding on a bicycle in that part of the street devoted to the passage of vehicles, is but exercising his legal right to its use, and a city ordinance that attempts to forbid such us of that part of the public street would be held void as against the common rights (Swift v City of Topeka 32 Kan. 671~674 (1890))

        NOTICE IT IS WRITTEN ABOVE, While the tyranny of the American system of government very largely consists in the action of the municipal authorities, this right has not yet been questioned or attempted to be abridged. < SINCE THESE WORDS WERE WRITTEN IT HAS BEEN QUESTIONED & WHAT WAS A RIGHT HAS MOST CERTAINLY BEEN ABRIDGED, THANKS TO THE MINDSET LICENSED ATTORNEYS LIKE YOU ARE.

        Luke 11: 45 One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”

        46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

        52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

        WOE TO YOU KENEMORE JR LAWERNCE !!!!!!! THERE IS A DAY OF RECKONING AHEAD.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 22, 2015 at 11:33 PM

        KENEMORE JR, aka JUNIOR
        @ Is it necessary to use this old case law that is no longer good law.

        YES JUNIOR. IT IS NECESSARY. YES INDEED JUNIOR. MISTER KENEMORE JR LAWERNCE.

         
      • pesky nat

        April 1, 2015 at 9:28 AM

        KENEMORE JR.LAWERNCE,
        @ Obviously you do not know how to read case law.

        Maybe so but what is also obvious IS, when ANY Court says something is an absolute RIGHT and NOT a PRIVILEGE,you look for cases that say JUST THE OPPOSITE, YOU want the cases that say PRIVILEGES. FOR EXAMPLE. I may very well not know how to read, STILL YET, I believe I do KNOW what the Court is SAYING in what FOLLOWS; > Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, consists of the right of locomotion – to go where on pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one’s business or pleasure, one may travel along the public highways or in public places. These rights, which existed long before our Constitution, and we have taken just pride in their maintenance, making them a part of the fundamental law of the land (Pinkerton V. Verberg 78 Mich. 573 (1889)

        DIG THIS, > These rights, which existed long before our Constitution, and we have taken just pride in their maintenance, making them a part of the fundamental law of the land < SEE IT? LOOK LEFT
        HOWEVER, maybe this is DICTA & MEANS NOTHING. WHY WASTE INK & PAPER THEN? Or, IF IT's DICTUM, & MEANS ZILCH, WHY SAY ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT MEAN DIDDLY SQUAT? I DON'T GET IT. I SEE WHAT IS SAID, BUT YOU SAY IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT IT SAYS & YOU SAY IT'S BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ??? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE READING MISTER KENEMORE JR. LAWERNCE.

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        April 1, 2015 at 10:04 AM

        I do know there are opinions and decisions attached to those opinions. Opinions cannot be used or quoted as case law because they are not controlling, What the decision is, is the controlling rule of law. As usual the Patriot community likes what they read in an opinion but fail to read what the decision is.

         
      • pesky nat

        April 2, 2015 at 12:31 PM

        JUNIOR, aka KENEMORE LAWERNCE.
        You are not grasping the fact that I do not need to read what ANY Court says or for that matter what ANYBODY says, including legislators, to KNOW IF I HAVE A RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING. The main reason I read Court decisions anymore is kauz I ain’t got nuthin A-YULSE 2 do at the time

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        April 2, 2015 at 5:47 PM

        well you better read because if there is a law (Statute)(ordinance) that has been passed you may want to read how the Court has interpreted it. That is what you think and what the law has been determined by a Court of Law is probably two different things

         
    • Colin

      February 25, 2015 at 12:53 PM

      22 USC 7701 defines taxpayers as any person who is subject to any internal revenue tax. A “person” is any human being. And even ministers are subject to taxes; they can get some exemptions, but typically have to file for them, which I don’t believe Hovind ever did.

       
      • Eric

        February 26, 2015 at 4:54 PM

        Colin,
        @ A “person” is any human being.
        I agree, based on my comprehension of what “human” means. We have man, 3 letters. We have

        human, 5 letters. Man itself is in the word, human. Why the necessity of adding “hu” like when

        pronounced, has the sound of, hue, which means what? We know what “color” of law means.

        Anyway,why the necessity of adding hu to man? Is this supposed to define what man means by

        adding the hu, or, diminish the meaning? The word, person, doesn’t bother me. It’s the way the

        word person is defined. WHY not just say, man means this or that instead of person means this

        or that. It could at least save on ink & printing costs. INK, now, not, INC.

         
      • russ

        February 26, 2015 at 5:50 PM

        Eric, Colin is entitled to his opinion as a homo sapien ape man or other animal. If he wants to reside within the District of Columbia as a legal fiction “person” to hide his apeness, he has that privilege. He is just practicing his evolution religion, which he has a privilege to do until his master takes that privilege away. Hopefully he continues to read Alfred’s blog and one day he will evolve in to the man created in God’s image. I have hope for him. But he better act quickly as time is of the essence. Until then, quit with the deductions and pay your full share of FIT for your privilege.

         
      • Eric

        February 26, 2015 at 7:20 PM

        Colin,
        @ > No. This is gibberish.
        Well thanks. I do not know if that is a compliment, for sure, but at least you did not say, “Backwoods Frontier Gibberish” & I have been advised, yes ADVISED, not informed that too, i.e., not just gibberish but, Backwoods Frontier Gibberish, or maybe it was Frontier Backwoods Gibberish. Anyway I will take what you say as an improvement on my part. Thanks.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 2, 2015 at 9:35 PM

        To: Colin,
        @ > 22 USC 7701 defines taxpayers as any person who is subject to any internal revenue tax. A “person” is any human being.

        Dear Colin, What article in Amendment of the U.S Constitution, & enforced via appropriate legislation can 22 USC 7701 be traced back to?

        @ > Quatloos. My apology. I thought you said Quatloos was getting cases dismissed.

        @ Alfred Adask case. When a half millon “Bucks” is used to prosecute a case the case proceeds for

        a year & just disappears, this is not “normal.” Your answers as to why it vanished are what is hard

        to understand but then again, we are not learnrd in the law & you are so this is why we don’t

        understand your answers, like, Alfred Adask’s strange interpretation of a definition, and, “Perhaps

        they decided that the MOOA argument was a sign that they were going to be inundated with

        nonsense, and washed their hands of it since the defendants couldn’t pay the fines anyway.” I don’t understand what this is supposed to mean

        I see that Alfred, russ, Eric, palani, ask you questions that makes sense to me, & your response is,

        either, 1. > I’m not a mind reader, so I’m having to guess what you’re talking about. 2. > I don’t quite

        understand what you mean. 3. > I don’t understand what you’re asking. < This looks like we are, at

        best, in "that grey area" where we cannot proceed.BUT, maybe something else has come in,

        comment/message wise I am not aware of, AND, trying to communicate like this gets to be very

        difficult every now & then. A Reply button below each message would sure help too. Thanks for

        your help !!! Thank you sincerely

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 6:08 PM

        To Colin,
        @ > Yes. I’m not religious, so I guess I have to add that I don’t believe in a creator.

        Colin, you do have a “godly trait/quality” in that you are honest. I think you will agree
        that if a license is required to do something,it is a privilege & not an absolute right, otherwise
        a license would not be mandatory. So, why do we NOT have the right to travel by traveling in
        an automobile? We do have the right to walk, rollerskate, but even riding a bicycle requires a license
        for this privilege in some states, California is one. Will you say a license is required to operate
        an automobile because an automobile is “inherently dangerous”? If so, how does a license make the
        automobile any less dangerous? The Court in City of Chicago says, Anything which cannot be enjoyed without legal authority would be a mere privilege, which is generally [175 Ill. 457] evidenced by a license. Cate v. State, 3 Sneed, 120. The use of the public streets of a city is not a privilege, but a right. < Your co/hort/heart Lawerence Kenemore disagrees.

        The license in the latter-named case is designed to operate upon those who hold themselves out as common carriers, and a license may be exacted from such as a proper exercise of police power; but no reason exists why it should be applied to the owners of private vehicles, used for their individual use exclusively, in their own business, or for their own pleasure, as a means of locomotion. Farwell v. City of Chicago, 71 Ill. 269; Joyce v. City of East St. Louis, 77 Ill. 156; City of Collinsville v. Cole, 78 Ill. 114; City of St. Louis v. Grone, 46 Mo. 575; Livingston v. City of Paducah, 80 Ky. 657; City of Covington v. Woods (Ky.) 33 S. W. 84. < Your co/hort/heart Lawerence Kenemore disagrees.

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 3, 2015 at 6:21 PM

        Nat
        is it necessary to use this old case law that is no longer good law. I know you like what it says but you first must learn how to read case law. First what was the decision. Anything after that is the opinion on how the decision was reached and we know about opinions we all have them but that is not the decision of the case. And is the case still good case law. So I am confused after looking up some of your cited cases and find that the decision is not what you imply and secondly they are no longer good cases.
        More of those bizarre notions that the patriot community has been espousing without any legal support

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 6:28 PM

        Colin, you do have a “godly trait/quality” in that you are honest.

        Thanks. I’m also handsome, humble, and good with animals.

        I think you will agree that if a license is required to do something, it is a privilege & not an absolute right, otherwise a license would not be mandatory.

        Sure, sounds reasonable.

        So, why do we NOT have the right to travel by traveling in an automobile? … Will you say a license is required to operate an automobile because an automobile is “inherently dangerous”? If so, how does a license make the automobile any less dangerous?

        That’s my best guess, yes, although I’ve never thought about it. A car driven by someone who’s demonstrated their knowledge of the rules of the road and subject to safety rules & enforcement is a lot safer than a car driven in the absence of such a regulatory system.

        The use of the public streets of a city is not a privilege, but a right.

        That doesn’t mean that use of the street for any reason, or in any way, can’t be restricted. For example, virtually everyone would agree that I can’t use a 400-ton rocket engine to go down the street at 1,000 miles an hour, at horrific risk to everyone in my path. Yet I’d agree that access to use the streets reasonably and safely is a right. Cars fall somewhere in between. Closer to walking than giant death rockets, but then, they aren’t regulated all that heavily either.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 8, 2015 at 10:17 AM

        I think taking the tests at the DOMV Is a great idea. Both written & “driving” tests. AND, if we “Pass” I think a “Certificate of Competency” should be issued, NOT, a LICENSE. I HATE that word anyway because it is the offshoot of, LICENTIOUS. I also believe in showing courtesy to others on the road & stopping at stop signs, red lights, etc., & “SOME” speed limits. Many LICENSED drivers do not do these things & when ya stop to think about it, I betcha the drunk drivers, reckless drivers, drivers involved in accidents, outnumber the unlicensed drivers 100 to 1 which tells me we should get rid of these licensed drivers one way or the the other.We don’t need umm & don’t want umm.Least I don’t. It’s the LICENSED drivers that are the problem. However, I am all for Chauffeur PERMITS. NOW you figger it out.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 8, 2015 at 10:42 AM

        Colin, > @ Thanks. I’m also handsome, humble, and good with animals.
        And We the Animals appreciate your goodness. Just don’t make us grovel like a scared beaten to a pulp puppy. >:)

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 1:10 AM

        Colin, You say, > Thanks. I’m also handsome, humble, and good with animals.

        Not with some of We the Animals. I see that some of us animals are good with replies with skimmer reader schemers tho.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 19, 2015 at 5:26 AM

        Legal Beagle Scholar Colin was asked,
        So, why do we NOT have the right to travel by traveling in an automobile? … Will you say a license is required to operate an automobile because an automobile is “inherently dangerous”? If so, how does a license make the automobile any less dangerous?

        Colin answers,
        That’s my best guess, yes, although I’ve never thought about it. A car driven by someone who’s demonstrated their knowledge of the rules of the road and subject to safety rules & enforcement is a lot safer than a car driven in the absence of such a regulatory system.

        Dear Colin, et.al., Courts have reviewed these questions many times, e.g.,

        • Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, consists of the right of locomotion – to go where on pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one’s business or pleasure, one may travel along the public highways or in public places. These rights, which existed long before our Constitution, and we have taken just pride in their maintenance, making them a part of the fundamental law of the land (Pinkerton V. Verberg 78 Mich. 573 (1889)

        • The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as those riding a bicycle or traveling by some other vehicle (House v Cramer 112 N.W.3 (1907)

        • The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the constitutional guarantees of which the citizen may not be deprived without due process of law. Berberian v Lussier 139 A.2d 869 (1958) & Schecter v Killingsworth 380 P.d; 93 ariz 273 (1963)

        • The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Adams v. City of Pocatello 416P.2d 46; 91 Idaho 99 (1966)

        • The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways includes the right in so doing to use ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the the right to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life an business. The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights. Teche Lines v Danforth 12 So.2d 784 (1943)

        • Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all these requirements that are known as the rules of the road. The right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen. While the tyranny of the American system of government very largely consists in the action of the municipal authorities, this right has not yet been questioned or attempted to be abridged. There can be no question, then, but that a citizen riding on a bicycle in that part of the street devoted to the passage of vehicles, is but exercising his legal right to its use, and a city ordinance that attempts to forbid such us of that part of the public street would be held void as against the common rights (Swift v City of Topeka 32 Kan. 671~674 (1890))

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 22, 2015 at 6:13 PM

        I again looked up these cases that they cite and note:
        Obviously you do not know how to read case law.
        Example:
        Berberian v. Lussier
        Annotate this Case
        139 A.2d 869 (1958)
        Aram K. BERBERIAN v. Laure B. LUSSIER, Registrar of Motor Vehicles.
        Eq. No. 2606.
        Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
        March 26, 1958.
        *871 Aram K. Berberian, Harold W. Demopulos, Providence, for complainant.
        William E. Powers, Atty. Gen., Archie Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
        Arthur A. Thomas, Joseph A. Kelly, Providence, Charles C. Collins and Ross D. Netherton, Jr., Washington, D. C. Bar, Joseph H. Braun, Hugh Neill Johnson and Robert G. Corbett, Chicago, Ill., Illinois Bar, for American Automobile Ass’n, Inc., amicus curiae.
        ROBERTS, Justice.
        This is a bill in equity wherein the complainant seeks to enjoin the registrar of motor vehicles from suspending his operator’s license because of his failure to deposit security with the registrar as provided in general laws 1956, title 31, chapter 32, sometimes hereinafter referred to as the financial responsibility act. The cause was heard by a justice of the superior court who thereafter denied the prayer for injunctive relief and dismissed the bill. From the entry of a decree pursuant to that decision, the complainant has appealed to this court.
        The provisions of the act which are pertinent to the issues raised herein are set out in §§ 31-32-1 and 31-32-2. Under the terms of § 31-32-1 the operator of a motor vehicle which has been involved in an accident is required to make a report concerning such accident to the registry of motor vehicles. It is also provided therein that unless such operator has, within a prescribed period, filed with the registry evidence that he has been released from liability for injuries or damages resulting from the accident, the registry “shall determine the amount of security which shall be sufficient in its judgment to satisfy any judgment or judgments for damages resulting from such accident * * *.” It is further provided in § 31-32-3 that after the lapse of another prescribed period of time the registry shall “suspend the license of each operator * * * unless such operator * * * shall deposit security in the sum so determined by the registry * * *.” In § 31-31-6 provision is made for judicial review of the action of the registry.
        It is not disputed that complainant was involved in an automobile accident in the city of Providence on February 1, 1957. He concedes that he did not file evidence of financial responsibility with the registry and that after having been given proper notice he has refused to deposit security in an amount designated by the registry.
        The complainant’s position is that the act is violative of the provisions of the federal and state constitutions relating to due process, equal protection and division of the powers of government. With respect to *872 due process of law he claims that the act deprives him thereof in that it authorizes a suspension of his license without a prior hearing and without a showing of negligence on his part.
        We considered the question of whether a license to operate a motor vehicle is property within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition in the case of LaPlante v. State Board of Public Roads, 47 R.I. 258, 131 A. 641, and we concluded that a suspension of such a license without a prior hearing was not violative of the due process clauses because it was neither property nor a contract. The complainant now seeks to have that case overruled on the ground that, even though it be not property within the constitutional purview, such a license partakes of the nature of a common right or liberty which is within the constitutional limitation. The state, on the other hand, contends that the law as stated in the LaPlante case should be continued as the law in this jurisdiction.
        We have, however, come to the conclusion that we can no longer completely subscribe to the proposition for which the LaPlante case stands. The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the constitutional guarantees of which the citizen may not be deprived without due process of law. In State v. Dalton, 22 R.I. 77, at page 86, 46 A. 234, at page 237, 48 L.R.A. 775, this court pointed out that the liberty which is guaranteed to every person by both our state and federal constitutions includes the right to be free from unreasonable interference in the pursuit of a livelihood. In the Dalton case at page 86, of 22 R.I., at page 237 of 46A., quoting from People v. Gillson, 109 N.Y. 389, at page 399, 17 N.E. 343, at page 345, we stated: “`Liberty, in its broad sense, as understood in this country, means the right not only of freedom from servitude, imprisonment, or restraint, but the right of one to use his faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling, and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation.'” The Court of Appeal of Louisiana in the case of Hughes v. Department of Public Safety, 79 So.2d 129, recognized that although an operator’s license was not a property right, it was a right which was protected by the due process clause. In that case the court stated at page 130: “A license to operate a vehicle upon the highways of the State is a privilege and not a property right, although the State may not deny this privilege to any of its citizens arbitrarily or capriciously.” The proposition that a license to operate motor vehicles and to use them on the public highways is something more than a mere privilege was also recognized in Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604, and in Escobedo v. State Department of Motor Vehicles, 35 Cal.2d 870, 222 P.2d 1.
        Whatever may be its nature, the right to use the public highways for travel by motor vehicles is one which properly can be regulated by the legislature in the valid exercise of the police power of the state. Financial responsibility statutes have been held to constitute a reasonable regulation of the public highways and a proper measure for protecting the public safety. Ballow v. Reeves, Ky., 238 S.W.2d 141. The question of whether the financial responsibility act violates the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions depends upon whether the legislature enacted it in a valid exercise of the police power, since a proper exercise of such power is not violative of the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution even though protected interests are affected. 2 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (8th ed.), p. 1235.
        It should be noted that nothing in this case was argued about the right to travel and no decision was made in this case about the right to travel. There was a statement made herein but it is just that a statement not a decision.
        Also note that they say the right can be properly regulated by the legislature. And the right to operate a vehicle is a privelege and not a right. As I looked at the other cases I found the same culling of words to make it appear that a case decided something that it did not this is how the Patriot community gets mis led frequently….Colin maybe a class should be held for them to learn how to read and use case law?

         
    • Eric

      February 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM

      russ,
      @ > Your message on, February 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM
      I KNOW exactly what you are saying in the first half of your message & I agree. I UNDERSTAND

      what you are saying in the 2nd half of your message & I agree on that 2. What I would like to know

      is, what in your opinion have I posted that led you to think I may be uaware of things you said to me.

      This will help, if I know your purpose in sending me your message, as I may then be able to explan

      something(s) in a different way, or it at least will help me to see where I have been mistaken, etc.

      Btw, NOW I know what you meant in an earlier message when you said, FIT. Now I know what FIT

      means. THANKS russ

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 1, 2015 at 11:23 PM

        Eric,
        @ “not just gibberish but, Backwoods Frontier Gibberish, or maybe it was Frontier Backwoods gibberish.”
        All Judges say guilty or not guilty although it’s mostly guilty it seems, but this does not mean they are one and the same Judge just because they, or at least most of them “talk/sound alike” so be of good cheer.

         
    • Eric

      February 26, 2015 at 8:23 PM

      russ,
      @ > Until then, quit with the deductions and pay your full share of FIT for your privilege.

      Your statement could mean to whoever it applies to but being as paranoid & sensitive as I am,I’m

      forced to conclude that you are speaking directly to me because of the word, “your”. Why do you

      assume I am a “taxpayer” in the sense of how the IRS defines a taxpayer? You will really be

      helping me to become a better writer of words to get my intent across if you will answer my

      questions. You keep advising me of this & that but you will not answer my questions. Why dat?

       
      • russ

        February 26, 2015 at 9:24 PM

        Eric, I was replying to Colin. Sorry for any confusion. There are now so many posts, it is confusing.

         
      • Colin

        February 26, 2015 at 10:05 PM

        If you are subject to any internal revenue tax, which is almost certainly the case if you have non-negligible income, you are a “taxpayer” under the law. Doing a dance around the definition of “person” doesn’t change the clear meaning and effect of the law, which is obvious from the fact that these bizarre theories have never succeeded in getting someone defined as not a person in court.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 2, 2015 at 7:54 AM

      russ,
      Check the following out when you can. Independent Referral Services – The Honest IRS
      http://www.irs.faithweb.com/ – 170k – Cached – Similar pages

      Ms. Payton also added: “.. a person with no Social Security Number would have no taxable income.” [see accompanying copy of SSA Penny Payton letter].
      ssa letter april 23, 2012 – My Private Audio
      privateaudio.homestead.com/Document-SSN_letter_Mon_Apr_23_2012.pdf – Cached – Similar pages

      Apr 23, 2012 … Your recent letter to the Attorney General’s office has been forwarded to us to answer. Social Security … Penny Payton. Claims Representative

      russ, this goes on to say,Your recent letter to the Attorney General’s office has been forwarded to us to answer. Social Security is a voluntary system in that no one is required to get a number. russ, I cannot cut & paste this letter. It does “paste” but it is a lot of “foreign material” in it. However, you can bring it up & read all about it. Another intersting thing is, the letter says, Anyone with no S.S.N. would have “no taxable income” < says this verbatim. Maybe it really means anyone with no S.S.N. would not have ANY income. (: hahhah

      The letter is dated January 10. 1990.

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 2, 2015 at 12:43 PM

        I would ask does the person that post all this nonsense on the sites I looked at do what they preach? No otherwise they would not continue with the site as it is.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 2, 2015 at 8:13 PM

      russ,
      @ Colin is entitled to his opinion as a homo sapien ape man or other animal. If he wants to reside within the District of Columbia

      russ, IF we were taught what he, Colin,has been taught, & without more knowledge, we would think that the “District of Columbia” consisted ONLY of that 10 mile square area & strictly that & not anything else other than this 10 mile square except for the forts, arsenals, etc. Constitutional provision. Colin IS saying, at least to me, HOW, the Gov-Co people see it, & this to me is good because it will let others who are researching, etc., see what we have to contend with.NOW, it is up to us to see if we can overcome Gov-co’s hell bent determination that we are Subjects AND we ARE subject to ITS jurisdiction, POWER, etc. After all they do have the guns, manpower, Jails & Prisons to put us into & if for nothing else, than to get our minds RIGHT. Great Case for you to read is, City of Chicago v. Collins, don’t remember the cite & I cannot bring up cases I was at one time able to. Anyway, you will like the Collins case IF you can bring it up. It is your & my “cup of tea.” We are not aware of everything each other is aware of so please do not take what I suggest to do and research, read, etc. as an insult. IF I knew what you are aware of, I would know better than suggest some things I do. Anyway, I think our redemption is near regardless.

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 2, 2015 at 8:47 PM

        I have read this case City of Chicago v.Collins and trying to figure out how this applies. They lost the case and it is about a fee that was not a tax and the ordinace was an exercise of police power?

         
  8. Eric

    February 24, 2015 at 9:35 PM

    Lawernce Kenemore Jr
    @ > How is is spiritual warfare when he broke a law or laws…you can make that statement to deflect from the fact that he broke a law.
    YOUR & MY ONLY HOPE & MANY OF HIS FOLLOWERS “BROKE THE LAW” TOO, MAN-MADE LAW. BUT, BY BREAKING THAT MAN MADE LAW THEY OBEYED THE SUPREME LAW(s) OF THE UNIVERSE. YOU MISTER SPEAK LIKE A DRAGON !! SHUT THE HELL UP !!

     
    • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

      February 24, 2015 at 9:39 PM

      Eric
      tell me you are not afraid of the facts because the law of this country is based on facts, not on spiritual warfare or supreme laws of the universe, we are considered a land of laws. I am trying to save others from going to prison by following such nonsense.

       
      • Eric

        February 24, 2015 at 9:57 PM

        @ > tell me you are not afraid of the facts because the law of this country is based on facts, not on spiritual warfare or supreme laws of the universe, we are considered a land of laws.

        Tell you that so you call me a liar? I FEAR my END RESULT from MY MAKER IF I CHOOSE TO OBEY “SOME” MAN-MADE LAW OVER MY MAKER’S LAWS. CAPICHE??

        @ > ! am trying to save others from going to prison by following such nonsense.

        I REFUSE TO GROVEL LIKE A BEATEN DOG. IF YOU WANT TO GROVEL LIKE A DOG GO FOR IT !!

         
      • Anthony Clifton

        February 27, 2015 at 8:32 AM

        believing “Jewish” lies and acting on those LIES is the

        https://buelahman.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/trifling-with-twitter/

        DE FACTO definition of NONSENSE
        and is in fact
        STUPID {Spiritual BLINDNESS} !!!

        which is what makes someone a

        NOTSEE !!

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 2, 2015 at 9:58 PM

        Lawernce Kenemore Jr
        March 2, 2015 at 12:43 PM
        @ I would ask does the person that post all this nonsense on the sites I looked at do what they preach? No otherwise they would not continue with the site as it is.

        Lawernce, humble heart, 1. > Some of us are not a mind readers, so we having to guess what you’re talking about. 2. > I don’t quite understand what you mean. 3. > I don’t understand what you’re saying. 4. Who is the person posting all the nonsense?

        @ I have read this case City of Chicago v.Collins and trying to figure out how this applies. They lost the case and it is about a fee that was not a tax and the ordinace was an exercise of police power?

        You have? The entire Case? wow. Will you provide a link I can click on to read the case? Maybe there is another City of Chicago v.Collins. I DO know this. Once upon a time all courts that said this or that is an absolute right & NOT a privilege granted by Government, TODAY all of those absolute rights are privileges granted by Government & TODAY ALL the Courts affirm this, i.e. they are privileges, and not rights to any degree. What happened Lawernce? HOW does anything that was an absolute right, NOW ,a government granted privilege, & NOW we must pay a fee for these privileges. Why dat??

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 8, 2015 at 10:52 AM

        @ > Tell me you are not afraid of the facts because the law of this country is based on facts, not on spiritual warfare or supreme laws of the universe, we are considered a land of laws.

        Ok, I ain’t a-feared of the facts because you say the law of this country is based on facts cause I do not need no statute, rule, regulation, or, ordinace, etc to tell me when to get up lay down put up or shut up. The can take all their legal jargon & stick it ALL up their hindquarters sideways for all I care AND I tell umm so eyeball to eyeball, tyrant judges to cause I ain’t a feared uhh nunn uhh umm.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 12, 2015 at 12:04 AM

        KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR.
        You say, > I have read this case City of Chicago v.Collins and trying to figure out how this applies. They lost the case and it is about a fee that was not a tax and the ordinace was an exercise of police power.

        You did not read the City of Chicago v.Collins case I was referring to. YOU submitted a DIFFERENT City of Chicago v.Collins case. The case I was referring to IS, > City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 175 Ill. 445 (Ill. 1898)

        The case you submitted IS, > City of Chicago v. Collins 175 Ill. 445 (Ill. 1898)

        Notice the 51 N.E. 907 IS NOT in your cite? Notice that?

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 12, 2015 at 10:34 AM

        Okay looking up this case will let you know my thoughts

         
      • pesky nat

        March 23, 2015 at 12:24 AM

        JR.,
        @Also note that they say the right can be properly regulated by the legislature. And the right to operate a vehicle is a privelege and not a right.

        Regulations are,e.g., Stop signs, Stop lights, Speed limits, etc. IF The Legislature is comprised of people who are supposed to be SERVANTS of the people, how is it that the people need to Servants PERMISSION to do do a certain thing? WHO IS THE SERVANT HERE? I KNOW if I want to be a TAXICAB driver, I KNOW what I NEED TO DO. I KNOW WHAT IS NEEDED DOCUMENT WISE.

        Whatcha think about this LAW; > 18 U.S. Code § 31 – Definitions

        (6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

        (10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

        JR.,e.g., HOW am I engaging in ANY of the above WHEN I use my “Vehicle” to come & visit you, or go for a Sunday ride in the Shenandoah Valley to enjoy the scenery? WHY do I have to get the Legislature’s PERMISSION to do that? Tell ya something else. IF we were brothers & together, & IF something happened to you & you needed to get to a hospital, what would you think IF I told you, well you are gonna have to call somebody else to take you to the hospital because I ain’t got their PERMISSION TO DO THAT & I WILL NOT DO ANYTHING WITHOUT MY MASTER’S PERMISSION.

        Luke 11:45 One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”

        46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

        52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

         
      • pesky nat

        March 23, 2015 at 12:35 AM

        JUNIOR,
        I shall have occasion incidently 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.

        In despotic Governments, the Government has usurped, in a similar manner, both upon the state and the people: Hence all arbitrary doctrines and pretensions concerning the Supreme, absolute, and incontrolable, power of Government. In each, man is degraded from the prime rank, which he ought to hold in the affairs of men: In the latter, the state as well as the man is degraded.
        Justice James Wilson, Chisholm v. Georgia

        “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

        What is your response to Good Justice Wilson & Robert Bork, KENEMORE JUNIOR LAWERNCE?

         
  9. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 9:43 PM

    There could be something wrong with the audio tapes and transcripts but that has nothing to do with he had a jury of 12 people that found him guilty…the transcripts and the tapes will not make any difference.

     
    • Adask

      February 24, 2015 at 10:19 PM

      If transcripts and tapes will not make any difference, why to they make them in the first place?

      Transcripts and tapes may not make much difference in most cases, but they might in this case. If the judge compared Hovind’s offenses to that of a rapist in the courtroom, and later removed evidence of those remarks from the transcript, that might be viewed as evidence of judicial prejudice sufficient to warrant a recusal.

       
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 1:13 PM

        I think it is very unlikely that such a comment would warrant recusal. If she made such a comment, it might have been merely rhetorical or exaggerated. Who knows? What counts much more is what the judge does. In this case, she rejected the government’s request for an “upward departure” (a sentence greater than that set forth by the standard sentencing guidelines). When the judge refuses to do that, it’s hard to see how she showed any actual bias towards Hovind.

         
      • Adask

        February 25, 2015 at 2:46 PM

        It’s arguable and even possible that the judge merely made an imprudent comment and didn’t really mean to express an personal animosity toward Kent Hovind. Could be. But why take a chance? Why should Kent Hovind be forced to defend himself before a judge he has reason to distrust? There are credible reasons for Hovind to distrust that judge. If he wants her recused, where’s the harm?

        The fact that the judge refused to recuse herself is viewed by many as additional evidence that she is out to “get” Hovind again. If Kent is found guilty and given a stiff sentence, it will be deemed by many as evidence of a government conspiracy to silence him. That conspiracy theory might persist for another decade or even more. Doesn’t the government have enough conspiracy theories to deny?

        If the government was smart, they’d recuse the judge. Maybe doing so would be silly, laughable and unnecessary. But where’s the harm?

        By refusing to recuse the judge, the government only sows more doubt about the legitimacy of our courts in the minds of those people who pay attention to this case. Doing so may be legally correct, but it’s terrible politics. It’s the political “equivalent” of a white cop shooting another black teenager. Don’t we have enough trouble?

        It’s hard for me to believe that my reasoning is so laughable or improbable that the judge shouldn’t have already come to similar conclusions. If so, it appears that the judge has a reason to refuse recusal that is strong enough to justify all the animosity that her refusal to recuse may cause. That implies that the judge has an ulterior motive to stay on this case. That implies Kent is being denied an impartial tribunal. That implies that Kent is exactly correct in his fears of being railroaded. That implies that the judge should recuse.

        But she won’t. That implies . . . .

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        February 26, 2015 at 1:15 PM

        Right on Colin!!!!

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 5:59 PM

        It’s arguable and even possible that the judge merely made an imprudent comment and didn’t really mean to express an personal animosity toward Kent Hovind. Could be. But why take a chance? Why should Kent Hovind be forced to defend himself before a judge he has reason to distrust? There are credible reasons for Hovind to distrust that judge. If he wants her recused, where’s the harm?

        He should be forced to remain before her because, short of good grounds for recusal, criminal defendants don’t get to choose their judges. (And not just criminal defendants, lots of parties to civil lawsuits also don’t like their judges.) Expressing an opinion about the seriousness of the crime isn’t that big of a deal. If she actually said it, I can see a lot of lawyers trying it out as the basis for a motion for recusal, but I don’t see it succeeding. That’s just a guess, though, obviously.

        In this case, while I wasn’t there, I don’t think she said this. Obviously I have a much more skeptical view of Hovind than you do; I think his crimes here arose out of dishonesty and greed, and I don’t believe his self-serving version of events (nor that of his friends and family). It’s not that the story they’re telling is inherently not credible—it’s not that hard to imagine a judge saying something like that—but rather that it’s very hard to believe she would bother to edit the transcript.

        First, I don’t think judges can even do that. They don’t have the authority to just revise the transcript. They can make things off the record, but I don’t think that power extends to post hoc revisions. Even if she did, I don’t know why she would bother. Saying that she thinks the crime is very serious just isn’t that big of a deal. And neither is the Hovind case—a district judge probably sees many more serious cases in a year than this one. (Just as we disagree about whether Hovind is trustworthy, we disagree about whether he’s important. While I find him very interesting, in the scheme of things he’s just another crook.)

        Doesn’t the government have enough conspiracy theories to deny?

        Yep. Some of them start or are spread here on your blog! But that’s not something the government really needs to worry about. Almost every defendant says they’re innocent, being railroaded, framed, unjustly convicted, whatever. A few people on the internet complaining about Hovind’s case doesn’t really make a difference. And even if it did, his crimes are so open-and-shut that the idea he’s being unjustly persecuted doesn’t hold water with people who approach the case from an unbiased perspective.

        If the government was smart, they’d recuse the judge. Maybe doing so would be silly, laughable and unnecessary. But where’s the harm?

        In my experience, judges recuse themselves, they don’t get recused by some other judge or part of the government (short of some really wild circumstances). Your argument would apply to every recusal request—why not grant it, just to avoid the perception of unfairness? Because that would let defendants and litigants judge-shop, picking the one they want. That’s not a good thing, because it delays and ties up the courts. You get the judge you get, short of an actual good reason for recusal, such as actual bias (not just an opinion about the seriousness of the crime that you don’t like).

        By refusing to recuse the judge, the government only sows more doubt about the legitimacy of our courts in the minds of those people who pay attention to this case. Doing so may be legally correct, but it’s terrible politics.

        I agree that the judge is legally correct in this case. That’s what matters. want the court to do what’s legally correct, not what’s politically correct. Don’t you?

         
      • Adask

        February 25, 2015 at 9:29 PM

        There’s a statement concerning justice that I don’t clearly recall, but is probably attributable to a Supreme Court justice that went something like this: “Justice must not only be fair, but must also have the appearance of fairness.” What the judge is doing in this case does not have the “appearance” of fairness. Why not recuse herself and regain the “appearance” of fairness?

        Our government is willing to provide financial and political benefits and incentive to immigrants who emmigrate into this country illegally. And yet, that government refuse to provide a trivial recusal to one man who’s already been imprisoned for 8 years and hasn’t hurt anyone. That dichotomy does not inspire confidence in the public.

        I don’t know what happened at Hovind’s first trial. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what’s written in the transcript of that trial because I haven’t read that transcript.

        But I’m told by people who I believe are telling the truth that eight people who were at the first trial signed an affidavit declaring that judge said something about Hovind being worse than a rapist. I’ve also heard from people who I believe that the judge’s comparison of Hovind to a rapist is not included in the actual transcript of that case. That’s evidence that: 1) the judge made that rapist comment in court and presumably in front of the jury; and 2) the judge (or someone) later regretted having made that comment and removed it from the record. Those two points indicate a sense of shame and even liability in the judge. If the remark was trivial, why delete it from the record? If the remark was not trivial, it’s deletion is evidence of malicious intent.

        Of course, we could doubt that the affidavit by 8 people is truthful. But, given Hovind’s status as a Baptist minister, and the fact that his “followers” are likely to be devout Christians, we can suppose that it’s unlikely that Kend Hovind could find and motivate 8 people to lie on his behalf. Odds are, the 8 people are telling the truth about the “rapist” remark.

        As for the public’s conspiracy theories (some of which allegedly emanate from this blog)–who’s responsible for that? We the bloggers? Or the judicial system?

        We live in a the most litigious nation in the world, and yet, the only people (about 0.3% of the public) who are educated in law are a handful of lawyers who were able to graduate from law school. Although we are all affected by the judicial system, virtually no one understands the law or how that system functions. Are the American people well-served by a system wherein one man in 500 can understand the law and the other 499 not only don’t understand, but can’t even buy representation?

        I can see no valid reason why high school graduates shouldn’t sufficient education on the law to understand the rudiments of contracts, trusts and constitutionally-protected rights. But we don’t get that education because it would be bad business for lawyers. Insofar as the people understood the law, there wouldn’t be as much demand for lawyers. Without that demand, lawyer fees would have to fall. Instead of being a racket, law might become something that was at least affordable and perhaps even just.

        Insofar as you defend our lawyers, judges and the judicial system, you are defending a greedy, often incompetent and routinely malicious bunch of racketeers who’ve taken control of our courts and thereby deprived the people of their rights and much of their wealth. The judicial system is a racket every bit as corrupt as any other criminal enterprise.

        So, if you and the government and schools won’t teach the majority of Americans how to defend themselves in court, should anyone be surprised if we try to educate ourselves? Should anyone be surprised if some of our self-education produced false conclusions? You can laugh all you want at our incompetence, but until you and the judicial system are more interested in helping to educate us than you are in laughing at us, you can expect to hear more “conspiracy theories”. When you do, just remember that you, the licensed attorneys and the courts have assumed more than a little responsibility for those conspiracy theories by refusing to teach law to ordinary American people.

        When you stop to think about it, is it reasonable or fair to assume that a legal system that can be understood by just one man out of 500 serves this country well? That system can’t be justified by the belief that the system is so wonderful that 499 out of 500 are too incompetent to understand or implement that systems’ grandeur. Sooner or later, we are going to have a justice system that can be understood and implemented by 50 out of 500. Maybe 100. Maybe 250.

        The finest lawyers and judges in this country may never have deceived or subjected anyone to injustice. But they are still part of a massive racketeering entity. They are guilty of associated with a criminal enterprise.

        Lawyers and judges may be able to convince themselves that they’re all honorable or only dishonorable when it’s really, really necessary. But try presenting that same idea to the public and you’ll be laughed off the stage. I don’t know the real numbers, but I’d bet that at least 70% of the American people distrust and even despise America’s legal system and the attorneys who implement that system. I’d bet that that 70% are more predisposed to believing “conspiracy theories” about the judicial racket than they are to believing BS about the “honorable” judges, competent attorneys, and “the best legal system in the world”. I didn’t create that predisposition. The predisposition to despise lawyers, judges and the “system” was created by the lawyers, judges and the system.

        If you have a problem with our “conspiracy theories,” you’d better start encouraging the system to start educating the people on law. If that’s too much of a problem for you, then you’d better get used to evermore conspiracy theories.

        And, incidentally, what’s the common denominator for “conspiracy theories”? Distrust. People believe in conspiracy theories because, at bottom, they don’t trust the government. The more distrust we experience, the more conspiracy theories we believe.

        Can you think of any valid reason why the majority of American people should trust their government? I’d be real interested to see if you could “sell” us a valid reason to trust the government. If you can’t, what’s your complaint with conspiracy theories?

         
      • Eric

        February 25, 2015 at 8:25 PM

        @ > If transcripts and tapes will not make any difference, why to they make them in the first place?

        Maybe, window dressing? I know for a fact that SOMEBODY, sometimes, deletes portions of the audio tapes. You hear nothing but static until the conversation continues. Also, be very leery of sending anything to any court via mail, in any manner. They have a way of receiving only blank paper & they just cannot understand WHY you would send blank pages. They have such a cute smirk on their faces when they say that, & they are very adept at chuckling about it.

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 10:46 PM

        I agree that justice should both be and look fair. I think Hovind’s trial satisfies that requirement. Obviously we disagree on that. That’s OK, it’s probably best that he have some defenders on the outside to keep his spirits up. I think his conviction is just, but I don’t think he should suffer any more than he has to, and I hope he has hope.

        And yet, that government refuse to provide a trivial recusal to one man who’s already been imprisoned for 8 years and hasn’t hurt anyone. That dichotomy does not inspire confidence in the public.

        I think it does. If the system passed out recusals like candy, that wouldn’t inspire confidence—it would give defendants the right to judge-shop. Requiring defendants to show actual evidence of bias makes me more confident in the strength of the system, since it shows (a) that there are standards greater than any one defendant’s displeasure and (b) that there are mechanisms for actually getting a recusal where it’s warranted, even if the judge is biased.

        If Hovind wants a recusal, he should file the motion and appeal the denial. He may have done that, I don’t know, but I don’t think his odds are very good if this is the only evidence of bias he’s got. Remember, this judge actually refused the government’s request and gave him a lower sentence than they were looking for.

        As for the public’s conspiracy theories (some of which allegedly emanate from this blog)–who’s responsible for that? We the bloggers? Or the judicial system?

        When the law defines “person” as any individual and the conspiracy theorists immediate start pretending it actually means only people who are corporations, then I don’t think that’s the legal system’s fault. The legal system is complicated, but it’s not incomprehensible. It’s actually much simpler than many of the conspiracy theories. Even the tax code.

        Are the American people well-served by a system wherein one man in 500 can understand the law and the other 499 not only don’t understand, but can’t even buy representation?

        Actually lots of people do pretty well for themselves without a lawyer. People can handle lots of things on their own—wills, trusts, incorporation, even litigation. The problem with wild conspiracy theories isn’t that the law is too hard to understand, it’s that the conspiracy theorists don’t like what the law says.

        That’s not to say that it’s not a shame that more people can’t afford good representation. It’s a real problem that there isn’t more legal help available pro bono or at low rates. But that’s not the source of the kind of wild fantasizing that got Hovind in trouble. He could have afforded good advice if he wanted it. He actively sought out bad advice instead.

        I can see no valid reason why high school graduates shouldn’t sufficient education on the law to understand the rudiments of contracts, trusts and constitutionally-protected rights.

        I agree!

        So, if you and the government and schools won’t teach the majority of Americans how to defend themselves in court, should anyone be surprised if we try to educate ourselves?

        You should! It’s going to take more and harder work. See the guy on this forum, example, citing bizarre ancient laws for the proposition that whether an individual is a person has something to do with whether they’re represented. That’s not an idea that came from serious research!

        When you do, just remember that you, the licensed attorneys and the courts have assumed more than a little responsibility for those conspiracy theories by refusing to teach law to ordinary American people.

        No one is preventing anyone from learning the law. There are lots of free, quality resources out there. If someone wanted to know more about the law, I’d recommend some books. Fried’s “Saying What the Law Is” comes to mind. But it would also be good to go to Coursera. They have some free online law classes that look very good! (I’ve taken some other classes through Coursera, but haven’t tried the law ones. I would if I were curious about an area I don’t know, though.)

        Here are four free online classes I found, all from Ivy League schools and taught by top professors:

        https://www.coursera.org/course/awc
        https://www.coursera.org/course/auc
        https://www.coursera.org/course/americanlaw
        https://www.coursera.org/course/constitution

        Can you think of any valid reason why the majority of American people should trust their government? I’d be real interested to see if you could “sell” us a valid reason to trust the government. If you can’t, what’s your complaint with conspiracy theories?

        That they’re false. It’s just that simple. I don’t care whether you trust the government or not, but you shouldn’t trust the conspiracy theorists of the world when they invent wild self-serving theories that just don’t match up at all to the evidence in front of your eyes. If you want to see how well those theories hold up to the actual practice of law, whether they look at all like how actual legal reasoning works, take that Coursera class on American law. I think it’s the third link. See the difference between people who know what they’re talking about and people who don’t.

         
      • Adask

        February 25, 2015 at 11:02 PM

        You didn’t bother to respond to my notion that the conspiracy theories are evidence of growing public distrust in government.

        More, while it’s true that some conspiracy theories are nonsensical, others prove to be true. Back in the 1990s, Hilary Clinton alleged a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” against her husband. Since then, other politicians have also alleged “conspiracies”. Are all such allegations false?

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 11:26 PM

        You didn’t bother to respond to my notion that the conspiracy theories are evidence of growing public distrust in government.

        Sorry, I was trying to keep the length down. I don’t think distrust of the government excuses conspiracy theories. Even if Hypothetical Bob doesn’t trust the government, that doesn’t excuse him telling other people that the moon landing never happened. He has an ethical obligation to find out whether it’s true for himself if he doesn’t trust the government. He can talk to an astronomer about retroreflectors or a geologist about moon rock samples or whatever, he doesn’t have to take the government’s word for it.

        Similarly, the guys making money by selling you-don’t-have-to-pay-taxes opinion letters aren’t justified just because their customers don’t trust the government. There are plenty of ways to get independent confirmation that their ideas don’t work.

        More, while it’s true that some conspiracy theories are nonsensical, others prove to be true. Back in the 1990s, Hilary Clinton alleged a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” against her husband. Since then, other politicians have also alleged “conspiracies”. Are all such allegations false?

        There are real conspiracies, sure. But when we say “conspiracy theory,” we typically mean a strange and obviously false belief. At least, I do. Clinton was talking about a general movement to attack her husband, which is pretty realistic. I wouldn’t call her a conspiracy theorist. If she’d said that Bill O’Reilly was actually a lizard person using CIA mind control drugs to attack her husband, I’d say that was a conspiracy theory. It’s a fuzzy and confusing term, but I can’t think of a better one.

         
      • Eric

        February 26, 2015 at 2:33 AM

        This thread has turned into hilarious TRAGIC comedy. BUT, I’m sure enjoying it. Learning a lot too.

         
      • Eric

        February 28, 2015 at 6:54 AM

        Adask,> “Justice must not only be fair, but must also have the appearance of fairness.”

        Buell v. City of Bremerton court identified three elements of bias: prejudgment of the issue, hostility or favoritism toward a party, and a personal interest in the outcome of the decision

         
      • pesky nat

        March 20, 2015 at 3:27 AM

        Adask
        February 27, 2015 at 11:35 AM

        @ Why do the people have to learn the government’s system? Why doesn’t the government have to learn and follow the people’s system?

        @ What is the “people’s system”? It’s The Organic Law of The United States of America? According to Congress in the Revised Statutes of A.D. 1875, that Organic Law includes The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution of the United States. (See, https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/–an article I first published in A.D. 2011.

        The top courts, but those courts still under the next step up the ladder Courts of Appeals, SAY, those documents are of historical interest only because of & due to the “Merger of Law & Equity” & the “DEVELOPMENT” of the Law”. ALSO, SOMEBODY deletes certain portions of the audio tapes, AND the transcripts & this does not HELP US in our appeal. In addition, we are arrested for some false trumped up charge during the 30 day limit to appeal. & for some “odd” reason KEPT in Jail at least until our appeal time is up. THEN when we do appeal, the Court of Appeals rules that our appeal is not an appeal BUT a Collateral attack & so then they dismiss our appeal due to the Collateral BAR RULE & NEXT the State Supreme Court denies our Petition for Writ of CERTIORARI & NO REASON WHATSOEVER IS GIVEN. THEY JUST DENY IT. THEY DON’T SAY WHY EITHER.

         
      • Adask

        March 20, 2015 at 11:23 AM

        Why do the people have to learn the government’s system . . . ?

        It’s a fundamental theme that’s animated almost all of man’s history. The creation seems inevitably drawn to try to overthrow the creator. We see that theme at the foundation for spiritual warfare between Satan (creation) and God (Creator). We see it in mankind (creation) and God (Creator). We see it between the government (creation) and the People (creator of the Constitution which created the government).

        There is something in most forms of life that is not merely determined to compete, but to usurp the powers of the creator/Creator that guarantees instability and strife.

        We are far more interested in ruling as creators than serving as creations.

        Much like Satan, the government does not want to server its creator (the people). It wants the creator (People) to serve the government (creation). This determination to rule rather than serve may be the fundamental flaw in all people. God, it seems, may be looking for a few good servants rather than a few good rulers.

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 20, 2015 at 11:27 AM

        Under our Constitutional system we voted for Congress and gave them the authority to make the laws and regulations that govern our society. If you are unhappy then vote in the people that will make the changes you want.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 20, 2015 at 3:44 AM

        Colin says to you, > Yes. I’m not religious, so I guess I have to add that I don’t believe in a creator.

        ENUFF said right there. Dear Alfred, IS there a way you can persuade WordPress to put a red letter Reply button below each comment? A Reply button RARELY appears. A Reply IS at the bottom of SOME messages, but ONLY a few messages have a Reply button, IF this is what it is called. NO RESPONSE EXPECTED. Have a wonderful day.

         
      • Adask

        March 20, 2015 at 11:25 AM

        I have no control over WordPress, nor do I want any.

         
    • Colin

      February 25, 2015 at 10:48 PM

      (FYI, I left a longer response that isn’t showing up. I’m sure it’s because I left some links in the response, so it looks like spam. They’re links to Coursera classes, which you can also find by just googling Coursera and then searching for law classes on their site. No one is preventing anyone from learning about the law! Coursera has multiple classes on the subject. I found four right off the bat that are taught by top professors at Ivy League schools. It’s how I’d learn a new field of law if I was curious about it!)

       
      • Eric

        February 28, 2015 at 7:43 PM

        Hi Colin,
        You say, > It is a fantasy to pretend that income is limited to business inside the District of Columbia.

        Colin, This is what russ is saying, >The District of Columbia, now, today, is like a giant octopus with tenacles spreading all across the U.S.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 7:05 PM

        Gracias Colin, however I did not ask you if I have a right to use a 400-ton rocket engine to go down the street at 1,000 miles an hour, at horrific risk to everyone in my path. AND, sides that I don’t think any license is available to do that EYEthur. I DO believe in courtesy to others on the road & off the road but you might take this as proof I’m OFF my rocker. Well No, not entirely. Anyway, There is a preacher getting ready to come on AVRN , Pastor Mike Hoover, it will not be your cup of tea, but it is part of my truth serum. I guess you will call it back to my brainwashing programing. I enjoy youe messages.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 14, 2015 at 12:56 AM

        Hi Colin, are you still here?
        @ Definitions can determine rights.
        Gov-co agents are always changing definitions. Btw. Since you are not going to answer my question on/about, what 2 or 3 OTHER animals are, as MOOA says, I don’t see how a Giraffe could be one, cause I don’t think there is ANY courthouse a Giraffe could get into, but then, sometimes court is held on the courthouse steps outside. Right? In your opinion, is “God” a spirit homo sapien?

         
      • Adask

        March 14, 2015 at 5:37 AM

        Rights that flow from God are unchanging. Government can’t redefine “unalienable Rights”. That’s probably one of the reasons government doesn’t want us to remember our God-given, unalienable Rights–they are not subject to government redefinition.

         
    • Eric

      February 26, 2015 at 7:24 PM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      February 26, 2015 at 1:15 PM
      @ > Right on Colin!!!!

      Why absolutely. Birds of a feather do flock together. You & he both have degrees. There are degrees in/of everything. Love has degrees too.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 5:18 PM

        Eric
        @ You & he both have degrees. There are degrees in/of everything. Love has degrees too.

        Yes indeed. Love does have degrees & in more ways than one. I believe a high love degree is superior to ANY law degree no matter how high the law degree is, but I also know Lawernce & Colin disagree. This erupts into heated debates unfortunately.

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 6:38 PM

        Hey, if I had to choose between love and a diploma, I’d take love. I’m glad that’s not a choice I have to make.

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 12, 2015 at 12:24 AM

      KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR. et.al,
      BELOW is a case anyone can bring up IF I can AND I JUST DID and the case below QUOTES some of the statements IN the City of Chicago case I used, NOT the one you used. AND, the following Court & case AGREES with MY City of Chicago v. Collins case

      106 Ill. App.2d 179 (1969)
      245 N.E.2d 601
      Rocking H. Stables, Inc., Greentree Stables, Inc., Happy Day Riding Academy, Inc., West Town Stables, Inc., and Little Acres Stables, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
      v.
      Village of Norridge, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 13, 2015 at 12:44 AM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      March 12, 2015 at 10:34 AM
      @ Okay looking up this case will let you know my thoughts.

      WHEN?? Seems when I present you with ANYTHING that PROVES it at least WAS the exact opposite of what you preach/proclaim, you do not respond to that. It’s the REVERSAL of the original ORDER of things I do not like & IT’S BECAUSE of HOW things came to be done to REVERSE the original order of things. YOU have a HEART OF STONE.

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 13, 2015 at 11:35 AM

        Had to go on line and shep this case it was overruled in 1934 it is no longer good law usually need to shep a case to see where it is after all this time and it was only cited 5 times. So again you could not use this case today. And as I have discovered in the Patriot movement when you look up these cases this is the fact

         
  10. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 9:48 PM

    At last Al I agree with you the system (Legal) is a mess that is sooooo many laws how do we keep up with them? However, we must learn the system to defend what we want.

     
    • Eric

      February 24, 2015 at 10:54 PM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr.
      Below is a cut & paste from Ex-Cop Law-Student Blog. Here is another way the Courts do things.

      OPINION

      BOSSON, Judge.

      This case presents two interesting questions. The first is whether a court exercising criminal jurisdiction and acting sua sponte may include in its sentencing order an injunction against further criminal conduct. The second is whether the injunction, even if invalid, insulates Defendant from a contempt citation for its wilful violation. We hold that the district court’s injunction exceeded its authority, but we nonetheless affirm the citation for contempt.

      (Please take notice what the Court SAID, in the 3rd & 4th sentences. NOW, let’s skip down a little).

      CONTEMPT

      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.

      (SEE ??? The Court is saying, We have the POWER to hold you in CONTEMPT for not OBEYING our INVALID MADE WITHOUT AUTHORITY ORDERS. WHERE DID THE COURT GET THIS POWER?? They GAVE THAT POWER TO THEMSELVES. SEE ??? I SEE.

      CONCLUSION

      We reverse the injunction entered by the district court as part of Defendant’s sentence. The finding of contempt is affirmed because the district court had jurisdiction and the Defendant ignored the injunction at his peril.

      (Please take notice that the Court DID NOT say, Defendant ignored the INVALID, MADE WITHOUT AUTHORITY INJUNCTION AT HIS PERIL. Now, read what “God” says in, Isaiah 10 verses 1 & 2.)

      ( There were no dissents ).

       
    • Eric

      February 27, 2015 at 5:15 AM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      You say, > At last Al I agree with you the system (Legal) is a mess that is sooooo many laws how do we keep up with them? However, we must learn the system to defend what we want.

      Well how do we learn to defend what we want in a system that is a legal mess when we can’t keep

      up with soooooo many laws to learn about so we can know enough to defend what we want in the

      legal mess system to defend what we want when we can’t even keep up with sooooo many new

      laws ? Seems if we do know how the legal mess system works but we don’t know anything about at

      least some of those soooooo many laws, I fail to see how to defend what we want.

       
      • Adask

        February 27, 2015 at 11:35 AM

        Why do the people have to learn the government’s system? Why doesn’t the government have to learn and follow the people’s system?

        What is the “people’s system”? It’s The Organic Law of The United States of America? According to Congress in the Revised Statutes of A.D. 1875, that Organic Law includes The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution of the United States. (See, https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/–an article I first published in A.D. 2011.)

        The question of whose “system” must be followed is ultimately a question of who’s the real sovereign–We the People or them the government thugs, parasites, fascists, communists and collectivists. We say the People are the sovereigns and the government must learn and obey OUR “system”. The government insists that IT is the sovereign and we must learn and obey ITS “system”.

        The big question is whether this controversy can be settled in court or on the streets; by reason or revolution.

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 13, 2015 at 8:22 PM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      March 13, 2015 at 11:35 AM
      @ > “Had to go on line and shep this case it was overruled in 1934 it is no longer good law usually need to shep a case to see where it is after all this time and it was only cited 5 times. So again you could not use this case today. And as I have discovered in the Patriot movement when you look up these cases this is the fact.”

      Thanks Lawernce. OF COURSE cases like this are overruled. 36 years later it’s overruled? THIS is WHY there are those of us who are angry. What you don’t seem to care about IS WHY absolute UNalienable rights at ONE TIME are NOT absolute UNalienable rights ANYMORE but are PRIVILEGES granted by Gov-Co. Tell me WHY?

      Don’t you recall that Justice James Wilson said,I shall have occasion incidently 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. In despotic Governments, the Government has usurped, in a similar manner, both upon the state and the people: Hence all arbitrary doctrines and pretensions concerning the Supreme, absolute, and incontrolable, power of Government. In each, man is degraded from the prime rank, which he ought to hold in the affairs of men: In the latter, the state as well as the man is degraded.

      Anyway, thank you for your reply. Can you provide a link to the case that overturned The Collins case & if so, will you? OR, tell me the case that overturned Collins & maybe I can bring it up. Thanks again.

       
  11. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 9:55 PM

    Again Case law is based on the Constitution there is no case law and Constitutional Law.

     
    • Eric

      February 24, 2015 at 10:13 PM

      @ > Again Case law is based on the Constitution there is no case law and Constitutional Law.

      There ARE extortion racket man-made laws too. I will obey ANY man made law that does not conflict with the laws of MY Father YHWH ha Elohiym.

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 12, 2015 at 1:36 PM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr,
      First, THANKS for saying what you have about the “New” City of Chicago v. Collins case.

      @ Again Case law is based on the Constitution there is no case law and Constitutional Law.

      Colin says, Constitutional jurisprudence” is just the law of the Constitution; “case law” is just the law of cases. Cases about the Constitution are both case law and Constitutional jurisprudence; they aren’t opposites. If you mean that law schools shouldn’t be teaching cases, then you’ll have to talk to the founders about that: they adopted English common law, which is the law of cases.

      Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities are heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.

      When God delegates His supreme authority to rulers, they have no liberty to use it in order to justify tyranny. In fact, there are quite remarkable examples in the Holy Scriptures where God explicitly commands civil disobedience against the state. For example, Egyptian midwives refused to obey the Pharaoh’s order to kill Hebrew babies. As the Bible says, ‘[they] feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt told them to do’ (Exod 1:17). Likewise, three Hebrews did not obey Babylon’s King Nebuchadnezzar, when he commanded everyone to bow down and worship his golden image (Dan 6). Daniel also refused to obey a decree enacted by King Darius, which forced everyone not to pray to any god or men except to himself.

      Although the first Apostles regarded it as totally lawful to disobey ungodly legislation, today’s followers of Christ like to quote from chapter 13 of Paul’s letter to the Romans in order to justify their compliance with immoral rules of positive law. However, Paul argues here that we obey the civil authority because it holds ‘no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong’ (Rom 13:3 NIV). If the person who holds the state power abuses his or her God-given power, ‘our duty is not to submit, but to resist’. According to F.A. Schaeffer, a more accurate interpretation of this passage would clearly indicate that ‘the state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has not proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.

      In Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 8 S. Ct. 1257, 32 L. Ed. 253 (1888), the Supreme Court recognized the importance of the divine influence in early U.S. law, stating that the “right to pursue happiness is placed by the Declaration of Independence among the inalienable rights of man, not by the grace of emperors or kings, or by the force of legislative or constitutional enactments, but by the Creator.”

      Re: 14th- I admit that previous to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, the validity of such legislation was to be determined by the constitution of the State, and that its tribunals were the authoritative interpreters of its meaning. This court could exercise no appellate jurisdiction over the judgments of the state courts in matters of purely local concern. Their judgments in such cases were final and conclusive. If the legislation of the State thus sustained was oppressive and unjust, the remedy could be found only in subsequent legislation, brought about through the influence of wiser views and a more enlightened policy on the part of the people < dissenting. As said by the Court of Appeals of New York, in People v. Marx, "the term `liberty,' as protected by the Constitution, is not cramped into a mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, as by incarceration, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to be free in the enjoyment of the faculties with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare," 99 N.Y. 377, 386; and again, In the matter of Jacobs: "Liberty, in its broad sense, as understood in this country, means the right not only of freedom from actual servitude, imprisonment, or restraint, but the right of one to use his faculties, in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling, and to pursue any lawful trade or vocation." 98 N.Y. 98. If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution." Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.
      In Watertown v. Mayo, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, speaking of the police power of the State, said: "The law will not allow rights of property to be invaded under the guise of a police regulation for the preservation of the health, or protection against a threatened nuisance; and when it appears that such is not the real object and purpose of the regulation the courts will interfere to protect the rights of citizens." 109 Mass. 315, 319.

       
      • Pesky Nat

        March 12, 2015 at 1:46 PM

        Justice Field’s dissenting opinion in, Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, beginning with, I admit that previous to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 12, 2015 at 1:50 PM

        Dissenting opinions are losing opinions not worth much

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 12, 2015 at 4:08 PM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      @ Dissenting opinions are losing opinions not worth much.

      Truth is not worth anything to losers. It ain’t over till the Fat lady sings the Swan Song. You are un godly so you do not SEE what a few of us SEE. But you will SEE. Think of me then. It’s the end result that matters in all things. Surely you must agree with that. How’s the “new” Collins case coming along. Not to good what you see is it?

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 13, 2015 at 12:18 PM

        Oh you are so wrong. I am a born again believer in Jesus Christ a graduate of Rhema Bible College. So maybe I do not see what you see, but when it comes to the law I went to school got me degree and know the facts, not what others have stated as I did in the past. Want to know study to shew thyself approved therefore not deceiving yourself.

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 15, 2015 at 7:27 AM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      @ Dissenting opinions are losing opinions not worth much
      Really!!??

      Although Chief Justice Rehnquist was often a lone dissenter in cases early on, his views would later often become the majority view of the Court.

      Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.
      545 U.S. 469, 518 (2005)

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 16, 2015 at 6:16 PM

      KENEMORE JR. LAWERNCE
      What you don’t seem to care about IS WHY absolute UNalienable rights at ONE TIME are NOT absolute UNalienable rights ANYMORE but are PRIVILEGES granted by Gov-Co. Tell me WHY?

      MISTER KENEMORE JR. LAWERNCE, WHY WILL YOU NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION. WHAT MADE AN absolute UNalienable right NOW BE ONLY A MERE PRIVILEGE?

       
  12. russ

    February 24, 2015 at 9:56 PM

    Lawernce accuses Hovind of being a “taxpayer” but can’t state why using all of those unambiguous “laws” and definitions he advocates. And yet Lawernce claims to be an expert on Hovind’s tax case? And if you don’t agree with the fedgov paid attorneys/judges and Lawernce you are a right winger nut job. I know former attorneys that have not paid FIT in over 30 years. Without you knowing their political stance, do you call them right wing nutjobs too? Did these former attorneys forget the “law” or do they know the “law” well enough to know they are not “taxpayers”?

     
    • Eric

      February 26, 2015 at 6:31 PM

      russ,
      @ > Until then, quit with the deductions and pay your full share of FIT for your privilege.

      U R fittin 2 make me have a FIT. :) Fit is defined in different ways 2, so what is your definition of, FIT, as you use it in your message? I don’t think you meant FIT, as in, the shoe does not fit.

       
      • russ

        February 26, 2015 at 9:19 PM

        Eric, FIT – Federal Income Tax, is applicable for those with the privilege of deriving income that is effectively connected with the conduct of a statutory “trade or business” [“performing the function of a public office” 26 USC 7701(a)26] within the District of Columbia (United States). Those “persons” (“U.S. Persons”/”Resident Alien Individuals”/”U.S. citizens”) are “taxpayers” and must pay FIT taxes according to the 16th Amendment (see Taft discourse in Congressional Record). If you previously voluntarily made the election to be treated as a “taxpayer” when you first filed at some point in your life, you may qualify to revoke that election http://www.weissparis.com/july4.html

        You must have a SS# to file FIT. Download the Social Security Act of 1935 and read the definitions of State, United States, and Person [ codified to 42 U.S.C. §1301(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1301 ] to determine if you qualify to have a SS#. Most likely you do not qualify and constructive fraud exists. Compare the definitions in the SSA to the same definitions in the Internal Revenue code. They are the same definitions and do not include the 50 states of the Union. Again, constructive fraud. Fraud vitiates all contracts.

        26 USC Sec. 3121 (e) State, United States, and citizen.
        For purposes of this chapter —
        (1) State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.
        (2) United States. The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        February 27, 2015 at 4:40 PM

        All I can say if anyone follows this they will go to prison and join the other hundreds that have already gone for doing the same…see Montana Freemen all still in prison

         
    • Eric

      February 28, 2015 at 7:10 AM

      russ,
      @ > You must have a SS# to file FIT.
      russ, dear heart, I am not a card carrying socialist, i.e., I do not have a Socialist Surveillance Control Number. HOWEVER, I have also been advised that our parens patriae create one for us as another way of helping us. Noooooooooo Problem. Not -a -problem. You don’t have one, Noooooo problem, we can take care of that. Nooooooooo Problem

       
      • russ

        February 28, 2015 at 1:39 PM

        Eric, you and I have much in common, as I do not have or use one. I am surely not surety for another “person” not fully disclosed to me with my full knowledge and consent. I take no benefit from the voluntary Democratic Socialist system in the District of Columbia. Who would knowingly volunteer for that? It is fun to watch the attorneys/public office holders run and hide when I seek answers to my questions. Guys like Colin and Lawernce spread ignorance, fear, and threats.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 1, 2015 at 11:43 PM

      @ Parens patriae

      Parens patriae relates to a notion initially invoked by the King’s Bench in the sixteenth century in cases of non compos mentis adults. In U.S. litigation, parens patriae can be invoked by the state to create its standing to sue; the state declares itself to be suing on behalf of its people. < Its people?
      Nevertheless and for example, the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act of 1976 (15 USC 15(c)), through Section 4C of the Clayton Act, permits state attorneys general to bring parens patriae suits on behalf of those injured by violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. < I say that some of us are nt amenable to this statutory s..t aka, dung. Believe you are one of the non amenables, Btw, why don't they speak "normally" as Colin says & instead of, non compos mentis, just say mentally incompetent, or, not of sound mind? < This is what I call speaking in a normal language.

       
      • Colin

        March 1, 2015 at 11:56 PM

        Btw, why don’t they speak “normally” as Colin says & instead of, non compos mentis, just say mentally incompetent, or, not of sound mind? < This is what I call speaking in a normal language.

        They often use the Latin and standard phrases interchangeably, depending on the subject. They use the Latin or other rote phrases out of tradition, and/or because the law grows up around certain phrases. So for example if someone is writing an opinion about a habeas corpus rule, they’ll use the Latin phrase because it means something particular and to make sure that this opinion lines up with others talking about the same thing. That makes certain phrases solidify as the language changes around them. They get updated from time to time when the law changes.

         
      • palani

        March 2, 2015 at 6:43 AM

        If I recall the attorney population around the area of the world where Eustace Mullins practiced took up a petition to stop him from using Latin. Seems the translation was costing them time and money and driving up the costs of attacking him or defending against him.

        Now I had a county type attorney question me on one of my recorded filings concerning the use of the word ‘dolus’. I suspect he knew what it meant. He just wanted to know if I was using boilerplate.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 2, 2015 at 8:35 PM

      To: russ
      @ “Lawernce accuses Hovind of being a “taxpayer”…………”

      Today, we are all presumed to be guilty & everything “humanly” possible is done to prevent anything we say, in any manner, to change “their” opinion. BUT, how do we know that Kent Hovind does not have ANY “ID” Gov-Co stamp of approval (< thanks to timmy) documents that are evidence of him being a taxpayer? How do we KNOW he does not have any of these ID papers?

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 2, 2015 at 8:54 PM

        I do not know whether he has any of these so called documents but those documents do not make him a taxpayer…the Statute and Code make him a taxpayer, however that is not what this trial is about.

         
  13. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 10:01 PM

    Here is the law:
    (a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
    (1) Person
    The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

    (14) Taxpayer
    The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
    So if you look at (1) and at (14) the definitions are clear

     
    • Eric

      February 24, 2015 at 11:15 PM

      @ > The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

      YES & this means this “PERSON” is an artificial entity BECAUSE of it’s ASSociates, i.e.,e.g.,a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

      Check out the meaning of, Noscitur a sociis. The rule of noscitur a sociis means that the meaning of a word is to be found from the context, or a word is known by the company it keeps.

       
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 1:16 PM

        No. This is gibberish. The definition of “person” is read exactly how it’s written, in natural and normal language. It includes any human individual, and has no requirement at all that they be associated with a trust, estate, company or whatever. The rules of statutory construction, which is what you’re alluding to with your emphasis on context, only apply when a provision is ambiguous or unclear. This provision is extremely clear. “Person” means every individual human being, plus trusts, estates, corporations, etc.

         
      • Adask

        February 25, 2015 at 2:54 PM

        Does “person” mean “man made in God’s image” as per Genesis 1:26-28? If it does, then “person” admits the existence of God.

        On the other hand, if the 1st Amendment protects my freedom of religion and my religion declares as a fundamental premise that all men are made in the image of God, then if person does not include “man made in God’s image,” I am not a “person”. Alternatively, if you want to force me to be a “person,” you are violating my freedom of religion.

        Does “person” include the term “men” as found in We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . .”? If so, are corporations, trusts etc. also “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”?

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 6:15 PM

        Does “person” mean “man made in God’s image” as per Genesis 1:26-28? If it does, then “person” admits the existence of God.

        “Person,” for the purposes of tax law, means what the statute says that it means: any individual, plus corporations and trusts and so on. So it includes things that aren’t humans made in God’s image, unless you think God is a corporate entity. But it also includes living, breathing people–all of us–regardless of anyone’s religious beliefs.

        This is way simpler than you want it to be: “person” includes all living human beings.

        On the other hand, if the 1st Amendment protects my freedom of religion and my religion declares as a fundamental premise that all men are made in the image of God, then if person does not include “man made in God’s image,” I am not a “person”. Alternatively, if you want to force me to be a “person,” you are violating my freedom of religion.

        You have the right to believe whatever you want about whether you are a person. But the definition is the definition, and it includes all human beings. You can’t change it because you disagree with it. Hovind was responsible for obeying the tax laws even if he felt he shouldn’t have been included as a “person.”

        This is not a First Amendment violation. Simply being defined as a person doesn’t have any effect, so it can’t violate your rights. The definition doesn’t force you to believe anything or interfere with your religious practices. The laws applying a definition might be a First Amendment violation, but they aren’t in this case. The law in this country has always been, from the very beginning, that neutrally-applicable laws are applicable even to those who claim they violate some religious belief, unless there’s a specific exemption. So for example, if the law says you can’t have open flames in the city limits but your religion requires you to light a giant bonfire every other night, you’re out of luck. (Unless the government creates a special exemption, such as RFRA, which does happen from time to time–but hasn’t been done here.)

        And of course, that doesn’t really make any difference because the definition has nothing to do with “made in God’s image.” It includes all human beings, period.

        Does “person” include the term “men” as found in We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . .”?

        Yes. It includes all human beings, and men are human beings.

        If so, are corporations, trusts etc. also “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”?

        The logic fails here. The definition includes humans and all those other things. It doesn’t make humans equal to all those other things. Just like the list of numbers from 1 to 10 includes 2, 3, 4, and 5 — but that doesn’t make 2 equal to 3 or 4 or 5. It’s a list of different things that fall into the legal category of “person.” That list obviously includes human beings, and no other entry in it makes that mean anything other than what it says: human beings are “people,” and therefore “taxpayers” if they’re subject to an internal revenue tax.

         
      • Adask

        February 25, 2015 at 10:02 PM

        I think you’re fibbing, counselor.

        Definitions (especially in relationship to people) are not necessarily whatever government says they are. Why? Because, definitions can determine capacities, status, rights and obligations. It may be that the plaintiff’s, defendants, lawyers and judges who go to court are all “human beings,” but depending on the definition of each, they may have different rights and duties.

        Definitions can determine rights. I may have some rights under one definition and a completely different set of rights under another definition. If I allow you to define me, I may thereby allow your to determine my rights, duties and even legal obligations.

        By means of defining me, you can even strip me of my most important rights. Definitions are no joke. It’s just like Bill Clinton said when he stated that “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Definitions are the “law” of the Law.

        Definitions are one of my favorite topics. I’ve published at least 70 articles on this blog that focus or at least touch on the concept of definition. You can find a list of those articles here: https://adask.wordpress.com/?s=Definitions. One of my favorite articles on definitions is Reading Is Guessing.

        Problems of definition are found in the terms “humans” (legally defined as “animals”), persons, corporations (legal fictions) and trusts (legal fictions) none of them are granted any rights worth mentioning by God. None of those definitions provide the same rights as afforded to “men made in God’s image”. None of those “persons” are entitled to the God-given, unalienable Rights declared by the Founders to be self-evident and granted to all “men” (made in God’s image). God gives nothing to liars and lies. Legal fictions are lies. God can’t lie; didn’t create any lies or legal fictions; granted no rights or even obligations to lies. Insofar as “persons” include legal fictions,they get no rights from God. Insofar as “persons” includes legal fictions, I presume that all other members of the “person” class have equal rights. If so, logic leads me to suppose that if the corporation-persons have no God-given, unalienable Rights than neither do any of the other kinds of entities listed in the definition of “persons”–including “natural persons” and “individuals”.

        But, if you or anyone in the government wants to stipulate that all persons have God-given, unalienable Rights, I won’t feel comfortable with such stipulation since I think it would be wrong. But even so, if that stipulation established that–even when I was deemed to be a “person,” “human,” “individual,” “citizen” or even “taxpayer,” etc.–that I was still deemed to enjoy all of the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration of Independence,” I’d be pleased.

        But I doubt that any agent of our de facto government would knowingly dare to stipulate that any member of the generic class of “persons” retained God-given, unalienable Rights. I suspect that the weight of such stipulation would shatter the foundation for our current de facto government.

        So, here’s my question to you, Colin: Will you stipulate that any or all members of the class of entities defined by government to be “persons” are both 1) endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and 2) recognized as so endowed by the government that created the definition(s) of “person”?

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 11:16 PM

        Definitions can determine rights. I may have some rights under one definition and a completely different set of rights under another definition. If I allow you to define me, I may thereby allow your to determine my rights, duties and even legal obligations.

        Sure. But it’s the operative law, the one that uses the definition, that really matters. If the law just says, “People are animals,” that doesn’t actually do anything. If it also said, “And no animal, however defined, has a right to freedom of speech,” then it would be a constitutional violation.

        The problem with your MOOC idea is that you’ve only got the first part. Defining humans as animals has no impact whatsoever on your rights, at all, in any sense, in the eyes of the law or the government. You can reinterpret the definition however you like, but your idiosyncratic definition of the law is not the law’s fault or a constitutional violation.

        If so, logic leads me to suppose that if the corporation-persons have no God-given, unalienable Rights than neither do any of the other kinds of entities listed in the definition of “persons”–including “natural persons” and “individuals”.

        Your logic is flawed. If I define “foobird” as including eagles, emus, ostriches and penguins, most of the items on the list can’t fly. That doesn’t mean eagles can’t fly. The qualities of one item on the list don’t determine the qualities of the other items on the list. If we define “animal” as including humans—as has been done since long before Darwin’s time—it doesn’t mean we lose our rights.

        But even so, if that stipulation established that–even when I was deemed to be a “person,” “human,” “individual,” “citizen” or even “taxpayer,” etc.–that I was still deemed to enjoy all of the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration of Independence,” I’d be pleased.
        But I doubt that any agent of our de facto government would knowingly dare to stipulate that any member of the generic class of “persons” retained God-given, unalienable Rights. I suspect that the weight of such stipulation would shatter the foundation for our current de facto government.

        No one in government’s going to bother making such a stipulation because it’s not necessary. Your rights under the DOI are unalienable—you don’t lose them just because someone points out that the species homo sapien is part of Kingdom Animalia. Homo sapiens in our country have the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to bear arms, etc.

        So, here’s my question to you, Colin: Will you stipulate that any or all members of the class of entities defined by government to be “persons” are both 1) endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and 2) recognized as so endowed by the government that created the definition(s) of “person”?

        Yes. I’m not religious, so I guess I have to add that I don’t believe in a creator. I can say though that you have the rights underlying the DOI and Constitution, just the same as the founders. Saying that human beings are animals has nothing to do with that. The government can’t take those rights away just by redefining you, it would be a Due Process and/or Equal Protection violation.

         
      • Eric

        February 27, 2015 at 12:55 AM

        Re: The rule of noscitur a sociis means that the meaning of a word is to be found from the context,

        or a word is known by the company it keeps, like in, Birds of a feather, e.g., The term “person” shall

        be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company

        or corporation. < ALL are artificial, non living entitie BIRDS. One & the same MEANING, i.e.,

        meaning the same thing, although they do not look alike, e.g., small compact car, luxury Sedan,

        pickup truck, Dump truck, etc., ALL are Vehicles.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 2, 2015 at 10:12 PM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      You said, > the Statute and Code make him a taxpayer

      Lawernce, are you saying that I also am what the Statute and Code says I am? IF you say,yes, please explain why? Thanks.

       
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 3, 2015 at 6:34 PM

      To: Lawernce Kenemore Jr

      Lawernce you were not honest in what you said about the City of Chicago v. Collins case. The City

      lost & Collins won. But,It appears that nobody cares one way or the other.Anyway, you say,”I do not

      know whether he has any of these so called documents but those documents do not make him a

      taxpayer…the Statute and Code make him a taxpayer”

      Really Lawernce? Then why does a letter from Penny Payton, Dept. of Health and Human Services,

      say, Dear Mr. Schiefen,. Your recent letter to the Attorney General’s office has been forwarded to us

      to answer. Social Security is a voluntary system in that no one is required to get a number, & why

      does she say, a person with no S.S.N. would have no taxable income? Huh? why dat Lawernce?

      Lawernce, a S.S.N. is one of those required docu,ents that you say you do not know anything

      about. Lawernce you are not being upfront & straighforward. Shame on you Lawernce Kenemore Jr

       
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 3, 2015 at 7:38 PM

        Nat
        here is the case so tell me am I wrong?
        Supreme Court of Illinois.
        City of Chicago v. Collins
        175 Ill. 445 (Ill. 1898)

        THE CITY OF CHICAGO v. LORIN C. COLLINS, Jr. et al.

        Supreme Court of Illinois.

        Opinion filed October 24, 1898.

        APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. MURRAY F. TULEY, Judge, presiding. *446446

        CHARLES S. THORNTON, Corporation Counsel, GRANVILLE W. BROWNING, and CORA B. HIRTZEL, for appellant:

        The court of equity had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill of complaint. 2 Beach on Injunctions, sec. 1290; Railroad Co. v. Mayor, 54 N.Y. 159; Stock Exchange v. McClaughry, 148 Ill. 372; Hosiery Co. v. Arnold,143 N.Y. 265; Eldredge v. Hill, 2 Johns. Ch. 281; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406; Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107; West *449449 v. Mayor, 10 Paige, 539; Ewing v. Webster, 72 N.W. Rep. 511; Railroad Co. v. Ottawa, 148 Ill. 397; Poyer v. DesPlaines, 123 id. 111; Yates v. Batavia, 79 id. 500; Gartside v. East St. Louis, 43 id. 47; Skakel v. Roche,27 Ill. App. 423; Chicago v. Ferris Wheel Co. 60 id. 384; High on Injunctions, sec. 1244; Shelton v. Platt,139 U.S. 591; Tribette v. Railroad Co. 70 Miss. 182; Downs v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108; Commonwealth v. Plaisted,148 Mass. 375; Welch v. Hotchkiss, 39 Conn. 140; Tomlinson v. Indianapolis, 144 Ind. 142.

        The fee imposed by the ordinance in question is not a tax, and may legally be greater than the expense of regulation. Kinsley v. Chicago, 124 Ill. 359; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U.S. 373; 68 Ill. 372; Cooley on Taxation, 599; Ex parte Gregory, 1 Tex. App. 753; Warehouse License cases,94 U.S. 147.

        The legislature had power to delegate to the city authority to enact the ordinance. Cooley’s Const. Lim. 734; Joyce v. East St. Louis, 77 Ill. 156; Gartside v. East St. Louis, 43 id. 47; Const. sec. 1, art. 9; Cate v. State, 3 Sneed, 120.

        The ordinance is a valid exercise of the police power of the city. Starr Curtis’ Stat. chap. 24, clauses 66, 78, 96, par. 63; Deems v. Mayor, 30 Atl. Rep. 648; Braun v. Chicago,110 Ill. 195; State v. Camp Sing, 44 Pa. 516; Thorpe v. Railroad Co. 27 Vt. 150; Cooley on Taxation, 600; Townsend v. State, 47 N.E. Rep. 19; 13 Am. Eng. Ency. of Law, 505, note 1; Robertson v. Commonwealth, 40 S.W. Rep. 920; Horr Bemis on Mun. Ordinances, 30; Slaughter-house cases, 16 Wall. 127; Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City, 111 U.S. 758.

        The ordinance is not void, because it designates a use for the surplus of the license fund. Cooley on Taxation, 597; Banta v. Chicago, 172 Ill. 204; Ex parte Gregory, 20 Tex. App. 210.

        The use of the surplus fund for “repairing and keeping in good condition” the streets of the city is lawful. Gartside v. East St. Louis, 43 Ill. 47; Rochester v. Upman, 19 Minn. 108; State v. Cassiday, 22 id. 321; Marmett v. State,45 Ohio St. 63; Cincinnati v. Bryson, 15 Ohio, 625; Harmon v. *450450 Chicago, 140 Ill. 374; Starr Curtis’ Stat. chap. 24, par. 117; Kuehner v. Freeport, 143 Ill. 92; Falch v. People, 99 id. 137; Tiedeman on Lim. of Police Power, sec. 129 a, p. 479.

        You must be mis reading or adding more fluff to the letter because it says getting or acquiring a social security number is voluntary…they did not say from your quote that not having a number means they have no taxable income, but of course you will not get a job without a ss number. so what say you?

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 8, 2015 at 11:04 AM

      Lawernce, you say, > the Statute and Code make him a taxpayer,
      But Lawernce, how do we know he fits exactly into what the statute says? Based on your prior comments you will say he fits because the statute makes everybody a taxpayer, Really? Well what about children?

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 13, 2015 at 8:51 PM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      @ Oh you are so wrong. I am a born again believer in Jesus Christ a graduate of Rhema Bible College.

      SOoooo you are born again huh? Most “Christians” think they are too. HOWEVER, some things in the Bible are so CLEAR people cannot accept those very clear on their face scriptures to mean what they say & say what they mean.The scriptures say, WHOEVER is BORN of the flesh IS IS IS FLESH. Where it is written in the scriptures, born again, this is a faulty translation & should correctly be translated, BEGOTTEN. I believe you will say yes, if I ask you if Yeshua/Jesus was “Born again”. I say YES, too. Now my question to you IS, WHEN?? I don’t mean for you to say a precise date, just tell me approximately the time Yeshua/Jesus BECAME “BORN AGAIN”. Hey thanks Lawernce. We just might come to an understanding of something good & agree on at least one thing after all.

       
  14. russ

    February 24, 2015 at 10:02 PM

    Lawernce, please define the term “lawful non-taxpayer” as used in case law.

     
    • Eric

      February 28, 2015 at 6:58 PM

      russ,
      DEAR Brother,
      @ >It is fun to watch the attorneys/public office holders run and hide when I seek answers to my questions. Guys like Colin and Lawernce spread ignorance, fear, and threats.

      I HEAR THAT TOO !!! Hey, russ, think you might be able to help me out on something/anything

      that I said that led Alfred to tell me, > “But sometimes you can’t seem to avoid the impulse to be

      disrespectful of others or play the fool. I don’t find those impulses to be helpful”, and, > You have

      the capacity to make great contributions on your own so it’s irritating when you instead choose to

      bash garbage can lids together. < < russ, tell me if you can, what you may see, that I said, to

      make Alfred tell me this. Thanks, russ.

      P.S. I asked Alfred to tell me, but so far, I do not see an answer from him. I apparently cannot see, at least some things I say, the way others see them. Thanks again, any help from you will be much appreciated.

       
      • Adask

        February 28, 2015 at 8:07 PM

        I’m not impressed by your attempt to play the “innocent”. Nevertheless, I’ll consider answering your question if you will tell me all of the other names you’ve used to access this blog.

         
  15. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 10:04 PM

    Russ
    I did not use a unambigugous law read the law it starts with the definitions and those definitions are clear, however if you do not think they are right you have the right to go to court to challenge them have you done that?

     
    • Pesky Nat

      March 8, 2015 at 11:13 AM

      LAWERNCE, Here is what you posted. You say, >here is the case so tell me am I wrong?
      Supreme Court of Illinois.
      City of Chicago v. Collins
      175 Ill. 445 (Ill. 1898)

      THE CITY OF CHICAGO v. LORIN C. COLLINS, Jr. et al.
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      O-KEY-DOAK !!! YOU ARE WRONG & I’M TELLIN YA YOU ARE WRONG.
      Way to go DECEIVER. TRY THIS CITY OF CHICAGO V COLLINS.

      City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 175 Ill. 445 (Ill. 1898) SEE IT? THERE TO YOUR LEFT

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 16, 2015 at 6:40 PM

      Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      @ > Oh you are so wrong. I am a born again believer in Jesus Christ a graduate of Rhema Bible College.

      What is missing in the 10 Commandments IF they were the Supreme Law of the Land ? IS anything else needed? WHY in your opinion are the 10 Commandments NOT the Supreme Law of the Land? KNOW WHAT?? I think maybe the 1787 Constitution should be declared unlawful &/or an annulity because it VIOLATES THE Separation of Church & State Doctrine. Remember it is written in the 1787 Constitution, > the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. IN WITNESS whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

      This Lord & in the year thereof has religious overtones doancha think? Now we can’t have this can we? As any legal beagle can clearly see, this clearly violates the Separation of Church & State DOCTRINE. RIGHT?

       
  16. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 10:05 PM

    There is no such term in the code as a “lawful non-taxpayer”

     
    • Pesky Nat

      March 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM

      MR KENEMORE You posted YOUR City of Chicago v. Collins to make me out a liar SO NOW I will post MY City of Chicago v. Collins to show I told the TRUTH,

      City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 175 Ill. 445 (Ill. 1898)

      [175 Ill. 455] The streets and alleys of a city are held in trust by the municipality for the use of the public, for purposes of travel thereon, and as a means of access to and egress from buildings abutting thereon or lots adjacent thereto. The right to travel on and along the streets of a city belongs to the general public, and does not belong to its denizens alone. The right to travel being in the general public everywhere, all persons have a right to pass along and use the streets and alleys of a city in all their parts, the full width and length thereof. The municipality, which is a mere trustee of the public, and holds the streets and alleys in trust for that public, cannot deny the right of the public to use the streets and alleys. It cannot assume an exclusive ownership, and deny the rights of the beneficiaries under their trust, and arrogate to itself a power greater than that of a mere trustee, and prevent the use of the streets and alleys by individual members of the public. The right of the public to use the streets is the right to use them for purposes of travel in the recognized methods in which the public highways of the state are used. Any method of travel may be adopted by individual members of the public which is an ordinary method of locomotion, or even an extraordinary method, if it is not, of itself, calculated to prevent a reasonably safe use of the street by others. If a right exists in a city council to impose a license fee, by way of tax, on every person using wheeled vehicles thereon, it may in like manner impose such license fee for such use of the streets in *909 every other manner of locomotion or travel, and reach the man on horseback, or the pedestrian walking laong the same. The right conferred on the city council by the legislature to regulate the use of the streets and alleys of the city did not contemplate a power in a trustee of a beneficiary to deprive that beneficiary of a right. The power to provide by ordinance for planting trees in streets; to prevent encroachments upon or remove obstructions from the same; to provide for *910 lighting and cleansing them; to [175 Ill. 456] prevent and regulate the rolling of hoops, playing of ball, or flying of kites therein; or to prohibit any other amusement having a tendency to annoy persons,–is conferred for the purpose of keeping the streets in a condition for public use and travel. Any usual method of travel along the streets and alleys of a city cannot be declared to be a nuisance. The city council may regulate the use of the streets and alleys to the extent that it may require sidewalks exclusively reserved for use by pedestrians, and exclude certain character of loads and regulate the width of tires on vehicles used on a certain character of pavements, and provide that the rate of speed shall be much less on certain streets than on others, and otherwise regulate the use of the streets, having in view solely the welfare and safety of the public. The city may also regulate certain occupations, such as hackmen, draymen, expressmen, and the like, for such regulation is of a police character, having reference to the general welfare, as a means of preventing improper exactions and extortions; and for the same reason a license may be exacted for vehicles used in the transportation of goods and merchandise, or of passengers, or for other purposes of traffic; but such license is an occupation license, and not one for the use of the streets. The license in the latter-named case is designed to operate upon those who hold themselves out as common carriers, and a license may be exacted from such as a proper exercise of police power; but no reason exists why it should be applied to the owners of private vehicles, used for their individual use exclusively, in their own business, or for their own pleasure, as a means of locomotion. Farwell v. City of Chicago, 71 Ill. 269; Joyce v. City of East St. Louis, 77 Ill. 156; City of Collinsville v. Cole, 78 Ill. 114; City of St. Louis v. Grone, 46 Mo. 575; Livingston v. City of Paducah, 80 Ky. 657; City of Covington v. Woods (Ky.) 33 S. W. 84.

      Anything which cannot be enjoyed without legal authority would be a mere privilege, which is generally [175 Ill. 457] evidenced by a license. Cate v. State, 3 Sneed, 120. The use of the public streets of a city is not a privilege, but a right. Tiedeman on Limitations of Police Power (section 281) says, in distinguishing between a license and a tax: ‘It is therefore conclusive that the general requirements of a license for the pursuit of any business that is dangerous to the public can only be justified as an exercise of the power of taxation or the requirement of a compensation for the enjoyment of a privilege or franchise.’ In Cooley, Tax’n, p. 596, it is said: ‘A license is a privilege granted by the state, usually on payment of a valuable consideration, though it is not essential. To constitute a privilege, the grant must confer authority to do something which, without the grant, would be illegal; for it what is to be done under the license is open to every one without it, the grant would be merely idle and nugatory, conferring no privilege whatever.’ A license, therefore, implying a privilege, cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right, free and open to all, as is the right of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge and without toll, provided he does so in a reasonable manner.

       
  17. russ

    February 24, 2015 at 10:05 PM

    Lawernce, please define the legal term “individual”, and how that is applicable to Hovind?

    Please define “Internal Revenue” and how that is applicable to Hovind.

     
  18. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 10:06 PM

    The issue is not whether Hovind is an individual but whether “Hovind” broke the laws he is accused of.

     
    • Eric

      February 24, 2015 at 10:17 PM

      @ > The issue is not whether Hovind is an individual but whether “Hovind” broke the laws he is accused of.
      Huh? Individual & taxpayer go hand in hand.

       
  19. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    February 24, 2015 at 10:08 PM

    26 U.S.C. is the Statute passed by your elected Congress and in that Statute is the defined the Internal Revenue Service and as I stated above the definitions where are found at the beginning of all Statutes defines taxpayer and person.

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 2, 2015 at 10:31 PM

      To: Lawernce Kenemore Jr
      Lawernce you say, “I have been telling this for years, you show them a Statute or Code and they then say it does not apply to them because they are not in the United States???? ”

      Lawernce, which United States are you speaking of? The Top Court says the term United States has several differerent meanings, so which United States do you mean within you meaning of United States?

       
  20. russ

    February 24, 2015 at 10:09 PM

    Lawernce you demonstrate you have not read and comprehend the Internal Revenue and to whom the federal income tax is applicable. You definitely sound like a federal “taxpayer”.

     
  21. russ

    February 24, 2015 at 10:36 PM

    Lawernce, you stated jurisdiction is a losing argument. The link I provided in the previous thread is to a company that has defended 2,000 clients that received a NOD from Auntie Iris, and following his paperwork based on a jurisdictional defense, his clients have won every time in tax court (without paying the fee and entering its jurisdiction). The precedent is set. He only accepts American nationals (those people born in the 50 states of the Union) as clients. He does not accept U.S. citizens nor federal government employees as clients. There’s your sign!

     
    • Colin

      February 25, 2015 at 1:33 PM

      Those guys are hilariously incompetent. The “dismissals” they’re talking about mean that the taxpayer lost. When you go to tax court to challenge an assessment, you are the petitioner. If the court dismisses your petition, you lost your case. Those clients aren’t winning anything, they’re just getting screwed by that company.

      See here for more details: http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9619

       
      • Eric

        February 25, 2015 at 6:53 PM

        Colin,
        @ > “So for example, if the law says you can’t have open flames in the city limits but your religion requires you to light a giant bonfire every other night, you’re out of luck. (Unless the government creates a special exemption, such as RFRA, ………….”

        So it seems you are saying Government is Sovereign & You & I ,et.al., are Subjects. Originally I had the right, NOT PRIIVILEGE to DO ANYTHING I wanted to do IF what I was doing was not threatning to cause harm to any other Man. So, are you an Attorney? Sound just like one. Also, I see that you are a Quatloos Fan, AT BEST. IF Quatloos is not a Gov-co agency I’d like to know what it is. What are the faults/flaws you see in Alfred”s position on presenting his position/belief to any Court, other adversary, or friend? Anyway,I’m getting upset again so I need to shutup.

         
      • Eric

        February 25, 2015 at 9:06 PM

        Colin,
        @ > The definition of “person” is read exactly how it’s written, in natural and normal language. It includes any human individual.

        And didGod say, Let us make human individuals after our image? And did God say, Woe to those who deprive my human individuals of their human individual rights? Did God say that? Well it doesn’t appear to matter what God said & says about anything anyway. Are you going to answer my other questions? I sure will appreciate it. Thanks.

        btw, you say, normal language. Is there an abnormal language?

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM

        So it seems you are saying Government is Sovereign & You & I ,et.al., are Subjects.

        No. I’m saying that the first amendment only prohibits the government from inhibiting the practice of religion. The founders never intended that to mean, and it’s never been interpreted to mean, that you have a pass to ignore any law that offends your religious sensibilities. Consider for example someone who claims that their religion mandates human sacrifice. Arresting and trying them for murder isn’t a First Amendment violation. (Or to use a more realistic example, the cases on this principle have more to do with animal butchery, for example whether kosher and halal slaughterhouses comply with health codes.)

        So, are you an Attorney? Sound just like one.

        Thank you. I am an attorney, but I don’t practice anymore. These days I’m a consultant. I teach negotiation skills to businesses around the world.

        Also, I see that you are a Quatloos Fan, AT BEST. IF Quatloos is not a Gov-co agency I’d like to know what it is.

        It’s a website run by people who are interested in, and skeptical of, conspiracy theories. Pretty obvious. It’s not a government agency. That’s a little paranoid.

        What are the faults/flaws you see in Alfred”s position on presenting his position/belief to any Court, other adversary, or friend?

        I don’t quite understand what you mean. I think he should shout his beliefs from the rooftop, on his website, or on the radio, to his heart’s content. I think he’s very wrong, at least about some of his beliefs, but so what? We’re all better off when people share their ideas, even the wrong ones. Especially when other people care enough to stop by and say, “Hey, that’s actually not true, and here’s why.” A conversation is always better than a lecture.

        @ > The definition of “person” is read exactly how it’s written, in natural and normal language. It includes any human individual.
        And didGod say, Let us make human individuals after our image? And did God say, Woe to those who deprive my human individuals of their human individual rights? Did God say that? Well it doesn’t appear to matter what God said & says about anything anyway.

        I don’t understand what you’re asking. Are you saying that defining “person” as including human beings deprives you of your human rights?

        btw, you say, normal language. Is there an abnormal language?

        I mean that you should read the definition normally, just the way you’d read any sentence.

         
      • russ

        February 26, 2015 at 6:10 PM

        That web site run by IRS shills? I just read that link and you are even more gullible than I thought if you believe what is posted on that web site. Now I know for a fact you are a homo sapien man or other animal gubmint troll.

         
      • Colin

        February 26, 2015 at 9:55 PM

        That web site run by IRS shills? I just read that link and you are even more gullible than I thought if you believe what is posted on that web site.

        If you think they’re wrong, I’d be interested in learning why. I’ve looked at the site you posted, and the Quatloos guys are right. That company is getting their customers’ cases dismissed, which is a loss for those customers. It’s either gross incompetence or an outright scam. Do you have another explanation for what those notices of dismissal are about?

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 2, 2015 at 12:18 AM

        Colin, @ Quatloos & your comment,> f you think they’re wrong, I’d be interested in learning why. I’ve looked at the site you posted, and the Quatloos guys are right. That company is getting their customers’ cases dismissed, which is a loss for those customers. It’s either gross incompetence or an outright scam. Do you have another explanation for what those notices of dismissal are about?

        First, they,those who comprise Quatloos, belittle, mock, slander & ridicule people like Alfred Adask, say Alfred Adask wants to pretend he is Sovrun, and re: Rancher Cliven Bundy, call him Sovrun with Sovrun Cattle, & they mock every freedom lover that comments on the Quatloos blog. Kindly direct me to a link that shows they, Quatloos, gets ANY case dismissed, They are ALL posters & gov-co agents from the very things they ALL say.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 2, 2015 at 1:41 AM

        Hello Colin,
        Based on practically everything you say,it seems that we all are engaging, having something to do with commerce, at least to some degree, AND if this is true, then you are 100% correct in your presentments, explanations, etc. Am I anywhere near being right about this commercial activity aspect? If I am, then there are a couple of more things I want to ask of you. Thanks MUCH.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 2, 2015 at 8:31 AM

        Hello Colin,
        @ And even ministers are subject to taxes; they can get some exemptions, but typically have to file for them, which I don’t believe Hovind ever did.

        Colin, does what you say also apply to non 501 (C) (3) Ministers with no S.S.N.?

        @ > No. I’m saying that the first amendment only prohibits the government from inhibiting the practice of religion.

        Colin, are you familiar with the Court case of Alfred Adask and he was facing $25,000, twenty five thousand per day fine for alleged violations of the drug laws? If so, can you explain why everything just “disappeared” i.e. dropped, vanished, after, I think it was over a year of litigation? Why do you think this happened? I don’t believe it was because the Judge told Alfred that he, Alfred, did not appear scared, do you? Now, it is my understanding that this is what the Judge told him, Anyway, why do you think that case was dropped? I don’t know if dropped is the right word but from what I understand Alfred did not pay a penny & did not go to Jail or Prison. Thanks Colin. You have been very helpful.

         
      • Colin

        March 2, 2015 at 7:52 PM

        Nat,

        First, they,those who comprise Quatloos, belittle, mock, slander & ridicule people like Alfred Adask, say Alfred Adask wants to pretend he is Sovrun, and re: Rancher Cliven Bundy, call him Sovrun with Sovrun Cattle, & they mock every freedom lover that comments on the Quatloos blog.

        OK, so you don’t like them very much. But that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. They’ve explained the problem with these crooks very clearly: they’re charging customers to file cases that get dismissed, then pretending those dismissals are a good thing. But their customers are the petitioners, not the defendants. If you file a petition in tax court, getting it dismissed is a bad thing because it means you lost your petition without even getting its merits heard. It’s a total waste of time and money. If their criticism is wrong, that’s one thing. But the fact that they don’t respect the people you do is not a reason why their criticism is wrong.

        Kindly direct me to a link that shows they, Quatloos, gets ANY case dismissed, They are ALL posters & gov-co agents from the very things they ALL say.

        I don’t understand what this is supposed to mean. Do you mean the Quatloos people should be trying to get cases dismissed? That’s like saying a doctor should be trying to give his patients the flu. Besides, there are a variety of people posting there. While many are lawyers, I don’t even know how many practice in tax court. (It’s a specialized and relatively uncommon practice.) Believing that someone who disagrees with you must be a government agent is, if you’ll pardon the term, a little paranoid—especially when their criticism is so clear-cut, simple, explained with detail and supporting documents, and totally unrefuted here. They aren’t secret agents, they’re just critics pointing out a business practice that’s either explosively incompetent or massively dishonest: filing losing cases, collecting a fee, and misrepresenting what the loss means in order to attract more business. Despicable.

        Based on practically everything you say,it seems that we all are engaging, having something to do with commerce, at least to some degree, AND if this is true, then you are 100% correct in your presentments, explanations, etc. Am I anywhere near being right about this commercial activity aspect?

        I can’t tell, because I can’t understand what you’re trying to say. I think everyone has something to do with commerce; if you buy and sell anything, you’re doing commerce. I don’t think that has anything to do with any of the subjects being discussed here, though.

        Colin, does what you say also apply to non 501 (C) (3) Ministers with no S.S.N.?

        Is this based on the tax protester story that people without a social security number are exempt from taxes? It isn’t true. This is another pernicious urban legend that has never succeeded in getting someone out of tax liability. As for “non 501(c)(3) ministers,” do you mean one whose church isn’t a 501(c)(3)? It doesn’t matter. Ministers’ income is subject to income tax, whether or not their church is tax-free. They can get tax benefits like a tax-free housing allowance, and they can even opt out of social security if they choose, but they still pay income tax regardless of their church’s status.

        Colin, are you familiar with the Court case of Alfred Adask…

        Yes, I’ve discussed it with him. I’d love to see a copy of the docket in that case, but as far as I know he doesn’t have one and I’ve never had the chance to swing by the courthouse and look for it. I don’t know what happened in that case, and he doesn’t know what happened in that case. He assumes they were scared off by his MOOA argument, but that is as close to a flat impossibility as anything in this life can be. The MOOA argument has no legal power whatsoever—Alfred Adask’s strange interpretation of a definition has no effect whatsoever on how Congress and the courts interpret that definition. People have defined humans as animals since at least the sixteenth century, and probably as far back as the ancient greek philosophers. Using such terminology has no impact whatsoever on Alfred’s rights, and could not even if Congress had intended it to. (It would be a Due Process violation at least, and probably also Equal Protection.)

        In other words, defining humans as animals could not impact Alfred’s rights at all, since we’ve always defined humans as a kind of animal—a kind of animal with special rights (human rights) that don’t go to any other kind of animal. No lawyer or judge would be at all concerned about such an argument in court. It would be like a boxer announcing he intends to enter the ring and fight by batting his eyelashes at the opponent: ineffectual and beyond strange.

        Why did the case get dropped? I don’t know. (And neither does Alfred.) Possibly the lead attorneys got busy on another matter, or sick, or retired, or moved away, or decided the case wasn’t worth the effort. Perhaps they decided that the MOOA argument was a sign that they were going to be inundated with nonsense, and washed their hands of it since the defendants couldn’t pay the fines anyway. Maybe it fell between the cracks. Maybe it’s still ongoing, and Alfred (who I don’t think was a named defendant) just hasn’t been notified of its progress. There are a lot of possibilities, but the MOOA argument scaring the government off is not one of them.

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 2, 2015 at 8:05 PM

        Way to go Colin

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 12:30 AM

        Colin, you say, “They often use the Latin and standard phrases interchangeably.”

        THEY ??? You mean WE doancha?

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 12, 2015 at 12:31 AM

        Colin, @ Yes. It includes all human beings, and men are human beings.
        WHY is it that men are not MEN BEINGS?

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 12, 2015 at 1:58 PM

        Professor of, excuse me, AT Law, says,
        @ The definition of “person” is read exactly how it’s written, in natural and normal language. It includes any human individual

        And God said, let us make human individuals in our image and, after our likeness, and WOE to those who deprive our created human individuals of their human individual rights. Yeah dat rat dat whut God saith aw-rite. I aine no dumpsy-wumpsy I know how to read tween duh lines & see what is really bein said.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 12, 2015 at 4:27 PM

        Colin, Licensed AT law Attorney,
        @ Those guys are hilariously incompetent
        Who are those guys? Do You mean We the animals ?

        Be Kind To Your Web Footed Friends Song Lyrics & Video
        Be Kind To Your Web Footed Friends Lyrics & Video! ♫ Be kind to your web-
        footed friends, For the duck may be someone’s little sister.
        http://thegigglebellies.com/be-kind-to-your-web-footed-friends-lyrics-video/- 72k -Cached – Similar Pages

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 14, 2015 at 1:21 AM

        Dear Colin, & Lawernce,
        We know there are phonies out there with their get out of jail free cards & every other kind of scam for sale programs you can imagine & I also know that some of these “Patriots” who congregate to learn about how the system works & how to overcome the oppression, etc., are phonier than a 3 “Dollar” FED Note. BUT, there are those of us who ask no more than what follows in,OLMSTEAD ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. GREEN ET AL. v. SAME. McINNIS v. SAME. 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

        The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.

        Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.
        ———————
        [The founding fathers] conferred, as against the Government, the right to be left alone — the right most valued by civilized men.”
        Louis D. Brandeis

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 15, 2015 at 7:50 AM

        Dear Colin,
        Re: > Are you saying that defining “person” as including human beings deprives you of your human rights?
        Colin I’ll say this again. I honestly believe everyone is deceived about at least SOMETHING & YES, I think this applies to the founding Fathers, e.g. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, etc. I think they understood what “human” meant when “HUMAN EVENTS” are described in the Statute of 1776. HOWEVER. Colin, you KEEP on saying human human human human. IF my memory serves me right, look up the word human in Ballentine’s Law Dictionary. This will tell you to go to the word MONSTER. I believe the phrase MONSTROUS EVENTS could have been written in the Declaration of Independence & would have meant the SAME THING as HUMAN EVENTS. Monstrous is defined as, very wrong or unfair. : very ugly, cruel, or vicious.

         
  22. russ

    February 25, 2015 at 1:18 AM

    Lawernce says: “There is no such term in the code as a “lawful non-taxpayer””

    I stated to look in case law. Economy Plumbing & Heating vs U.S., 470 F2d. (1972)
    “Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights or remedies in due course of law. With them (non-taxpayers) Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.”

    Who are those non-taxpayers? They are not the statutory resident alien individual, but rather the non-resident alien individual. Read 26 USC 7701 (b)(1)(B) and 26 CFR 1.871-1(a)

    Taft, the father of internal revenue, discusses that the intent of the 16th Amendment is an internal revenue tax on the national government itself, in the Congressional Record: http://www.weissparis.com/assets/LegIntent16Am.pdf

    Now look up the statutory legal term “Trade or Business” per 26 USC 7701 (a)26, defined as “performing the functions of a public office” which is an employee of the national government. There is your “taxpayer”.

    Congress does not assume to deal with “lawful non-taxpayers”. But the definitions are not ambiguous or deceptive and you already knew all this legalese, right Lawernce?

     
    • Eric

      February 25, 2015 at 5:34 AM

      Howdy russ,
      I think Lawernce is correct when he says, “There is no such term in the code as a “lawful non-taxpayer”. Am going literally on the “term” “lawful non-taxpayer”. Then again, I do not even remotely know what > statutory resident alien individual, v. non-resident alien individual means.

       
      • russ

        February 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM

        Eric, I agree that all “taxpayers” must pay FIT. I agree that the 16th Amendment is valid for the “taxpayers” who must pay FIT on their “income” that is “effectively connected with the conduct of a statutory trade or business within the District of Columbia” (“a federal employee in a public office”). From Colin’s posts, I agree with Colin that Colin is a “taxpayer” and that If Colin doesn’t pay his FIT, he is a criminal homo sapien tax protestor and should be prosecuted by his master to the full extent of the federal codes he espouses. I do not agree with Colin who thinks every man is a statutory “person” who is a “taxpayer”. I encourage every man to study the facts and determine if the FIT is applicable to him. There are plenty of “lawful non-taxpayers” in the “free enterprise” private sector “without the United States”. Even if they wanted to make a “gift or bequest” to the national government, they could not do so as they have revoked the election to be treated that way, and some have no number to track the gifts or bequests. Sadly, that is the case for me. However good luck to Colin is his “taxpayer” endeavors.

         
      • Colin

        February 26, 2015 at 10:09 PM

        It is a fantasy to pretend that income is limited to business inside the District of Columbia. These arguments have never succeeded in relieving someone of their tax liability in court, because they are false.

        If you’re really interested in the law, take one of the free Coursera courses from an actual expert. See the difference in how someone who knows what they’re talking about operates, as compared to the wild-eyed and incompetent internet gurus you’re following. (I don’t count Alfred among their number; while I disagree with his ideas, I don’t see him leading people into dangerous foolishness the same way crooked tax gurus do.)

         
      • russ

        February 28, 2015 at 5:19 PM

        Colin said “It is a fantasy to pretend that income is limited to business inside the District of Columbia. These arguments have never succeeded in relieving someone of their tax liability in court, because they are false.”

        Colin, again you misconstrue and make statements as fact and you do not define your “legal” terms. There is no need to pretend. In regards to FIT, what is “income” as defined in your statutory code world? What is the definition of “employee” in the code? Is it not defined as employed by the federal government? I am not an employee. Where is “United States” defined as anything other than District of Columiba in your “Internal Revenue” code. Please decipher your code for this thread. I will agree with you that all FIT “taxpayers” must pay FIT. So be sure to pay your fair share.

        As far as your comment that these arguments never succeed and are false, I know your statement to be false with first hand and second hand knowledge. With facts and evidence on the record. In fact, now I do not even have to make any argument. There is no arguing. I know many others way out in the 50 states united that do not need to make an argument. I even correspond with them in letters sent via first class mail with a 3 cent stamp (non-domestic/without the United States). They never raised the rates for us people way out here.

         
      • Adask

        February 28, 2015 at 5:53 PM

        Whether the government presumes that a transaction or event took place in Washington DC, or an administrative district, territory or state “of the United States” is debatable. It’s possible that only one of those possible answers can ever be true. Or maybe one answer (say, Washington DC) is presumed sometimes and another answer (maybe “territory of the United States”) is presumed other times.

        But the one common denominator in all of these possible answers is this: the event, act or transaction is presumed by the government to have taken place outside of the perpetual Union; outside the borders of a State of the Union; outside the borders or jurisdiction(s) of The United States of America.

        This distinction may be important since, so far as I know, it’s logically impossible to prove a negative statement. For example, I can’t actually prove that I’m not in Washington DC right now. So, if I were to base some line of courtroom defense on my claim that I’m in Washington, DC, technically, I may not be able to prove that negative statement. Therefore my claim might be dismissed by the court.

        But what if–instead of claiming that I’m “not in Washington DC,” I expressly claimed under oath that I was within the border of The State of Texas–a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”? The second statement is not a negative. It’s a positive statement that could be proved in court. More, if I swear under oath that I’m within the borders of a State of the Union, anyone who wants to prove I’m not will either have to swear that I’m not within the borders of of “The State of Texas” or they’ll have make a positive statement that I am in some district, territory or state which is something other than a State of the Union. The first challenge to my claim would be a negative statement that can’t be proved. The second would constitute an admission in court that the government is presuming the existence a second, fictional “plane” of jurisdiction and presuming that we have voluntarily entered that “plane”.

        All of this is conjecture based on the unproven “The State” of the Union vs. “this state” “of the United States” hypothesis is roughly correct.

        The main point is that while you can’t expect that your claim that you’re not “in Washington DC” might be unprovable, a very similar “positive” claim that your are within the borders of a State of the Union might be irrefutable.

         
      • russ

        February 28, 2015 at 11:46 PM

        Thats a good point Alfred. FIT is applicable for citizens of the District of Columbia and resident alien individuals. Those could be in DC, and could also be in its territories and possessions (Puerto Rico, Guam, “this state”, etc). It could also include a Citizen of one of the 50 states of the Union who voluntarily elects (sub silentio) to be treated as a US citizen/resident for income tax purposes to make a gift or bequest. If you sign a W4 and 1040, you are signing a jurat under penalty of perjury that you are a 14th amendment US citizen taxpayer.

         
      • Colin

        March 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM

        Russ,

        In regards to FIT, what is “income” as defined in your statutory code world?

        Under sec. 61, “gross income” is “all income from whatever source derived.” If it’s money you’ve got today that you didn’t have yesterday, it’s gross income. There’s no shadowy secret definition that limits it to only certain kinds of income, or applies some bizarre non-standard definition of “income” itself. It’s income in the normal sense of the word: money coming in. You can test this by looking at how courts determine what income is: no secret or obscure rules. It’s very simple. Pretending that it has a secret limitation is one sign of a pseudoexpert who’s making things up, or relying on fantasies, rather than engaging with the real world.

        What is the definition of “employee” in the code? Is it not defined as employed by the federal government?

        Section 3401 stipulates that “the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States.” The word “includes” means that such employees fall within the definition, but not that only such people are “employees.” The very next sentence makes that clear, as it gives another kind of employee. (It’s just like saying that the category “birds” includes penguins. That doesn’t mean eagles aren’t birds.) Logically the list is non-exclusive, and in practice, just like “income,” the word is used in the way normal people normally use the word. If someone employs you at a job, you are an employee. And once again, you can test this very obvious conclusion by looking at how courts have read the statute. The silly notion that tax gurus have figured out a double-secret meaning of “employee” in the code has never succeeded. It’s obviously false, and just another fantasy designed to make the gurus sound like they have special knowledge.

        Where is “United States” defined as anything other than District of Columiba in your “Internal Revenue” code.

        I had to look this one up, because it’s even goofier than the normal tax protester mumbo-jumbo. Long story short, it’s another version of the silly idea that “includes” means “only includes the one thing mentioned explicitly,” rather than the logical and natural “includes this one thing mentioned and all the other things in the category as well.” (Again, like saying that “Birds include penguins” somehow means that only penguins are birds, not eagles or any other avian.) The code says that “United States” includes “the States” and D.C., and defines “state” as inclusive of D.C. Which is pretty normal for a complicated code provision that’s going to use the terms “United States” and “state” a lot; for example, when it gives a credit for state taxes paid, that needs to include D.C. as well and the definition does that without requiring additional provisions. Reading it through magical tax protestor glasses gives a totally nonsensical result: United States means just D.C. and states, where states mean D.C.

        I’m sure there are infinite variations on this long-discredited idea, but it falls under the same axe as the other tax protester magic spells: it doesn’t work. No court has ever agreed that this is what the code means. The argument always fails, because it is not only wrong, it is incredibly obviously wrong.

        Ladies and gentlemen, someone who tries to tell you that you can get out of paying your taxes with these inane ideas is either extremely ignorant or reaching for your wallet. Ask them to show you the cases in which these ideas have succeeded. Court rulings go down on paper. They should be able to show you the document! Telling you it’s lost, or secret, or covered up is like saying, “Hey! I found the holy grail in my backyard! No, you can’t come look at it. I lost it. It’s in my house somewhere, but I’m not going to bother looking for it. But you should totally treat me like an expert in the field of archaeology anyway.”

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        March 2, 2015 at 12:36 PM

        Colin
        I have been telling this for years, you show them a Statute or Code and they then say it does not apply to them because they are not in the United States???? So many have gone to prison by attempting this, however none of the people who teach it or preach it go? Why because they are not brave enough to attempt it themselves. Thanks for your input keep it up I have almost given up but suggest they all take classes on how Codes and Statutes are written then they will know how to read them and how they apply.,

         
      • Colin

        March 1, 2015 at 11:16 PM

        Alfred,

        But the one common denominator in all of these possible answers is this: the event, act or transaction is presumed by the government to have taken place outside of the perpetual Union; outside the borders of a State of the Union; outside the borders or jurisdiction(s) of The United States of America.

        Can you give us an example of such a transaction?

        This distinction may be important since, so far as I know, it’s logically impossible to prove a negative statement. For example, I can’t actually prove that I’m not in Washington DC right now.

        Yes you can. If you prove that you’re currently in New York, or Atlanta, or Dallas, or San Francisco, or any place that’s geographically outside of the borders of Washington, DC, then you’ve proven that you aren’t in Washington, DC. Because there’s no secret definition of “Washington DC” that somehow includes the rest of the country.

        So, if I were to base some line of courtroom defense on my claim that I’m [not] in Washington, DC, technically, I may not be able to prove that negative statement. Therefore my claim might be dismissed by the court.

        I assume you meant “not” in DC, based on your previous writing, so I added it—let me know if I’m wrong. And if your defense is to whatever charge or complaint is that you weren’t in DC, whether it’s a valid defense depends on the law. For example, if you’re accused of rear-ending someone in DC, then a defense that you were actually in Akron at the time is perfectly valid. If you’re charged with not paying your federal taxes, and your defense is that you’re not located in DC, then your defense would not only be disregarded, you’d probably be fined for making a frivolous argument that has been shot down over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. The idea that the income tax applies only to DC residents or federal employees is completely wrong, and courts treat it that way.

        But what if–instead of claiming that I’m “not in Washington DC,” I expressly claimed under oath that I was within the border of The State of Texas–a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?

        You could just say “in Texas.” The extra words don’t do anything, whether in a court of law or a common conversation.

        More, if I swear under oath that I’m within the borders of a State of the Union, anyone who wants to prove I’m not will either have to swear that I’m not within the borders of of “The State of Texas” or they’ll have make a positive statement that I am in some district, territory or state which is something other than a State of the Union.

        The only time this would come up would be if the dispute were about your physical location: was the defendant in Dallas or Akron? (I guess there could be a dispute about whether you were on an Indian reservation, military base or post office, which could affect the jurisdiction of a federal court for certain crimes and torts—but those are clearly defined and well-understood places.) There’s no legal trickery about whether you were in Texas-the-state or Texas-the-territory, because Texas is Texas is Texas. It’s all the state, the state of the union, the State of the Union, etc. It’s really as simple as it sounds.

        All of this is conjecture based on the unproven “The State” of the Union vs. “this state” “of the United States” hypothesis is roughly correct.

        It is not even roughly correct.

        If your hypothesis were at all correct, or close to it, law professors would be all over it. It would be the hugest news in legal scholarship since Lochner. Law professors would be pounding out articles about it, exploring the ramifications, as fast as they could, competing to be the expert in this weird new trick. Where are all those articles? Where are the cases acknowledging this bizarre hypothetical jurisdictional mumbo jumbo? They don’t exist, because the idea has only the most casual, flirtatious relationship with reality. I’m sorry, Alfred, but this idea is as wrong as wrong can be.

         
      • Colin

        March 1, 2015 at 11:22 PM

        Russ,

        FIT is applicable for citizens of the District of Columbia and resident alien individuals. Those could be in DC, and could also be in its territories and possessions (Puerto Rico, Guam, “this state”, etc). It could also include a Citizen of one of the 50 states of the Union who voluntarily elects (sub silentio) to be treated as a US citizen/resident for income tax purposes to make a gift or bequest. If you sign a W4 and 1040, you are signing a jurat under penalty of perjury that you are a 14th amendment US citizen taxpayer.

        People who make these goofy arguments in court not only lose, they get fined for making arguments that are so silly they’re a waste of the court’s time (and therefore the public’s money). The only way this crud ever wins is through a Cheek defense, otherwise known as, “Your honor, I’m so out of touch with reality that I thought I didn’t have to pay taxes because of some latin words I read on a website one time!” (That defense rarely works, and when it does, it only gets people off of the criminal charges. Even the very few defendants who succeed under Cheek are on the hook for catastrophic back taxes, interest, and civil penalties.)

        The reason no tax guru crooks can cite cases agreeing with these elaborate make-believe stories is that there aren’t any. The theories are false, and obviously false. You should immediately suspect that people who try to push these ideas on you are either extremely ignorant about law, or worse (although more rarely) trying to scam you. Never give money to someone who tries to posture like an expert behind such ramblings. Ask them to show you the cases that agree with them, then read those cases cover-to-cover. And if you want to really arm yourself to understand law, try taking one of those free online classes. Actual knowledge is the best defense to pernicious nonsense.

         
    • Eric

      February 27, 2015 at 6:11 AM

      Hey russ look Bro I’m with ya. It’s a mindset thing.
      You say, to Colin, That web site run by IRS shills? I just read that link and you are even more gullible than I thought if you believe what is posted on that web site.

      Colin is not gullible. It’s a mindset thing there too. We are in another phase of “spiritual warfare” here, on this thread too. I have made my choice on who will win & the end result.

       
      • russ

        February 28, 2015 at 4:32 PM

        “Colin is not gullible. It’s a mindset thing there too. We are in another phase of “spiritual warfare” here, on this thread too. I have made my choice on who will win & the end result.”

        I do not know Colin. I am sure he is intelligent in what he was taught in the “legal” system “within the District of Columbia”. My objection is that he presumes everybody is in there with him. For him to judge everybody as a “person” born “within the United States” and subject to their code world, and if you made a different choice you are a nutjob needs to be rebutted. He would need to argue that one with he who issues the passports for the non-14thers, not me. I agree indeed that the “spiritual warfare” is increasing in intensity, much like the birth pangs. Grace and peace brother.

         
    • Eric

      February 28, 2015 at 8:06 AM

      To, russ & other people of the same mindset. I have a Circuit Court of Appeals case “somewhere” & I see something the court said that at least to me, is, revealing. The Court said, “The accused has not provided any evidence that he is not a citizen of the United states & therefore he is subject to the income tax”. There IS a way to prove, at least some people can prove he/she IS NOT a citizen of the U.S. but this must be done via an affidavit & of course we must know what to say in the affidavit. I have done this, but I will not tell anyone else how to do it. If I can find out, ANYBODY can, & besides, it is better to teach a man how to fish rather than keep giving him a fish. Capiche? The case of, Van Valkenburg v. Brown,43 California 43, will give you a GOOD CLUE. There ARE S.C.O.T.U.S cases, Yes cases, that will give us clues TOO. Also, see The United States v. Susan B. Anthony. In pertinent part, > In U.S. v. Anthony the courts stated: “The rights of Citizens of the State, as such, are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.”

       
      • russ

        February 28, 2015 at 3:22 PM

        Eric, yes, we are on the same page in that regard. I enjoy your posts. Similar to what you mentioned, I have facts/evidence/affidavits of my positions as well. Learning how and how not to contract is important. Choice of money/law is a good study. I also study ex-bar attorneys, ex-leo, judges etc that expose the constructive fraud. Knowledge of that strengthens my faith, and my need to choose this day (on a daily basis) who I will serve. It is a narrow path that I choose. But you know what they say about narrow paths.

         
    • Eric

      February 28, 2015 at 5:52 PM

      russ
      Your message on February 28, 2015 at 4:32 PM
      I hear you. All the way too. I also agree with Colin when he says all human beings are persons. I agree because I KNOW how a human being is defined in all statutory law. The problem is, when we tell anyone, (almost) including people we love we are not a “human” & try to explain why we say this, they still think we have a mental problem, to put it mildly, like,crazy. Know what I’m sayin?

       
      • russ

        February 28, 2015 at 11:28 PM

        “Know what I’m sayin?”

        Yes indeed. I have evidence that all persons are homo sapien ape animal residents of the District of Columbia who have commercial privileges granted by the 14th amendment and equal and civil rights that make them “subject to punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind”. I claim none of that, rebutted it. Get that religion away from me. Have you done a word study on “exactions” relating to 42 U.S.C.1981? Not even a home sapien should be subjected to that.

         
  23. palani

    February 25, 2015 at 6:17 AM

    Perhaps Hovind found himself in prison because he didn’t declare himself to be non-fungible. Only fungible things (things capable of being represented) can pass the BAR.

    http://www.suijurisforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=5434

     
    • Colin

      February 25, 2015 at 1:18 PM

      Hovind found himself in prison because he was convicted of specific crimes defined by statute and proved to a jury of his peers. Fungibility, which does not apply to people, is an irrelevant concept. And “bar,” whether in the sense of a bar association or the bar in a courtroom, is not spelled with all capital letters. (Not that it’s a big deal, but some people have an odd notion that it’s an acronym or something.)

       
      • palani

        February 25, 2015 at 5:25 PM

        @Colin … ” Fungibility, which does not apply to people”
        I agree. People become persons when represented. It is the representation that makes a people a person and the person is what is fungible.

        “Fungibility, is an irrelevant concept ”
        If it were irrelevant then why discuss it at all? Granted it applies to things. In Latin a thing is called res. A resident is a thing identified. Are you are resident? If so then you are a thing.

        ““bar,” is not spelled with all capital letters”
        I sometimes capitalize things to emphasize them in a paragraph. Does this offend you?

         
      • palani

        February 25, 2015 at 5:31 PM

        @ Colin … “Hovind found himself in prison because he was convicted of specific crimes defined by statute and proved to a jury of his peers”
        Really? There are so many other ways one might find himself in prison. For example contempt of court which never involves violating any statute nor standing in front of a jury for their decision. But then that would still have been his action wouldn’t it? Which gets us back into the LAW OF ONES’ BEING concept. I am not attempting to do a post mortem just sayin’ if we are responsible for our own actions then we must take responsibility for all events resulting from our actions.

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 5:43 PM

        “People become persons when represented. It is the representation that makes a people a person and the person is what is fungible.”

        No. People are persons, whether or not they are represented.

        “If [the word fungible] were irrelevant then why discuss it at all? Granted it applies to things. In Latin a thing is called res. A resident is a thing identified. Are you are resident? If so then you are a thing.”

        We’re discussing it because you asserted, wrongly, that it has something to do with Hovind’s conviction. Hovind is not a “thing.” Residents are not “things.” The word “resident” is not a derivative of the Latin word res. “Resident” comes from the word resideo, meaning “I sit” or “I reside.” Its roots are re and sedeo, not res. (Even if “resident” did come from res, it wouldn’t matter. Being a resident doesn’t make someone a “thing” in the eyes of the law. Some people have bizarre notions that have nothing to do with the real world.)

        “I sometimes capitalize things to emphasize them in a paragraph. Does this offend you?”

        Not at all. I thought you were in the grip of one of those bizarre notions—some people think that the “bar” in “bar association” is an acronym for some shadowy cabal, and they spell it in all caps to signify that they’re clued in to the imaginary conspiracy. Sorry that I misconstrued your meaning.

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 5:46 PM

        @ Colin … “Hovind found himself in prison because he was convicted of specific crimes defined by statute and proved to a jury of his peers”
        Really? There are so many other ways one might find himself in prison.

        There are indeed very many ways might have found himself in prison. But the way he did get there was being found guilty of specific crimes by a jury of his peers.

         
      • palani

        February 25, 2015 at 6:46 PM

        @ Colin “People are persons, whether or not they are represented.”
        I sense a lack of diligent study on this topic and recommend your ideas mature before you rely upon such a falsehood.

        “Being a resident doesn’t make someone a “thing” in the eyes of the law”
        Resident, Is a Tenant who is bound Residere on his Lord’s land, and not to depart from thence. Leg. Hen. 1. cap.43
        Sure seems to have the attribute of a ‘thing’ to me

         
      • palani

        February 25, 2015 at 7:27 PM

        @ Colin “There are indeed very many ways might have found himself in prison. But the way he did get there was being found guilty of specific crimes by a jury of his peers.”
        That is merely the effect. You have not identified the cause.

         
      • Eric

        February 25, 2015 at 7:39 PM

        Colin,
        You repeatedly say, > and proved to a jury of his peers.
        A Jury of HIS peers? I say YOU ARE an attorney. Tell me, what ever happend to the THIRD ESSENTIAL element that comprised whether ANY Court had Jurisdiction. WHY are ONLY TWO so called essential elements NOW required. Talk to me legal beagle.

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 9:31 PM

        @ Colin “There are indeed very many ways might have found himself in prison. But the way he did get there was being found guilty of specific crimes by a jury of his peers.”
        That is merely the effect. You have not identified the cause.

        The cause of that effect is that he refused to withhold payroll taxes as he was legally obligated to do and used structured withdrawals to help commit that crime. I think the underlying cause of that behavior was probably greed, but I can only speculate.

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 9:36 PM

        Eric,
        A Jury of HIS peers? I say YOU ARE an attorney. Tell me, what ever happend to the THIRD ESSENTIAL element that comprised whether ANY Court had Jurisdiction. WHY are ONLY TWO so called essential elements NOW required. Talk to me legal beagle.

        I’m not a mind reader, so I’m having to guess what you’re talking about. Do you mean subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and notice? They’re all satisfied. Federal courts have SMJ over federal crimes and PJ over defendants in custody. Notice is not something that normally comes up in criminal law; by the time he’s been arrested and up for his pretrial hearing, he can hardly claim he doesn’t have notice.

         
      • Anthony Clifton

        February 27, 2015 at 8:40 AM

        or the Almighty
        used Ken Hovind to win souls to the TRUTH of Jesus
        who had been put in the ZIONIST US GOV detention centers
        for not worshipping the BEAST….according to the
        statutory regulations in Title 26…

        http://hushmoney.org/branch_davidians_died.htm

        no one HAS to believe lies…

        Remember TEXAS HERO Wayne Martin who famously told
        the FREEMASON Lt. Larry Lynch…

        http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/214300/let-the-bibi-gate-blame-game-begin/?

        “Larry, When you reject TRUTH you place yourself in Judgement.”

        29 standing ovations….how many this time…?

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 8, 2015 at 11:43 AM

        Colin, & re: QUATLOOS. You say, “OK, so you don’t like them very much. But that doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

        Well of course not. NO gov-co AGENT IS WRONG. You know that? Didn’t you know that? Btw, gov-co MEANS, GOVERNMENT INC. You asked before, What does gov-co mean? Now you know.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 16, 2015 at 7:06 PM

        Colin,
        @ Hovind found himself in prison because he was convicted of specific crimes defined by statute

        Yeshua, aka Jesus THE Christ, &, MANY of his followers were EXECUTED for the SAME THING, i.e. e.g., convicted of specific crimes defined by statutes put on the books in those days. Those Statutes made something LAWFUL ILLEGAL !!!

        Acts 5:18 So they arrested the apostles and put them in the city jail. 28 Didn’t we strictly order you not to teach in this name? 29 But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than men.

        Since God tells us to also obey man’s laws, we should. But, when they come in conflict with the LAW of “God”, we are to “obey God rather than men”. Do you & your “BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN” CO-HORT/HEART DISAGREE? Are you saying we should only obey what is deemed LEGAL?? Please answer.

         
    • Colin

      February 25, 2015 at 9:27 PM

      I sense a lack of diligent study on this topic and recommend your ideas mature before you rely upon such a falsehood.

      Sense whatever you like. Your notion that representation is relevant to whether a person is a person is a bizarre fantasy, not at all connected to the actual law or legal practice. There is a reason you cannot cite any serious legal authority for the principle: it does not exist. The idea is one that you will find only in feverish chat rooms online, not used or considered sane by actual practitioners of the law.

      “Being a resident doesn’t make someone a “thing” in the eyes of the law”
      Resident, Is a Tenant who is bound Residere on his Lord’s land, and not to depart from thence. Leg. Hen. 1. cap.43
      Sure seems to have the attribute of a ‘thing’ to me

      First, I don’t know what “Leg. Hen.” is—the laws of Henry? As in British monarchial laws dating back hundreds of years? They aren’t relevant to the modern United States. Even if they were, what you just cited doesn’t have anything to do with whether a resident is a “thing.” Even under that definition a “resident” would be a person, not a “thing.” And even if it did say something like that, it would be irrelevant, since today “resident” does not mean someone who is bound to land and forbidden to leave.

      Law is not a book of magic spells, where you can just recite some mumbo-jumbo and suddenly make all the stuff you don’t understand disappear. If you’re confused, you need to study what the law actually says. Internet forums where people are trading magical “legal” incantations won’t help.

       
      • Adask

        February 25, 2015 at 10:25 PM

        Actually, law is–in at least some regards–a “book of magic spells”.

        For example, by means of law we can conjure up legal fictions like IBM, GM and Apple Inc. that don’t actually exist and give these fictional entities rights, duties, and liabilities. That’s not so different from using a book of magic to conjure up demons. A good argument can be made that legal fictions cause more harm than magically-summonsed demons.

        Thanks to the magic of “law,” judges can also conjure up implied trusts and implied trust relationships and hold these implied trusts to not only exist (like the ghost of Anne Boleyn who, “with ‘er head tucked underneath her arm, walks the midnight hour”) but also subject the implied fiduciary to obligations he’s never actually consented to or even imagined. In that regard, how are laws that create “implied trust relationships” any different from a magical spell that might make a person drowsy,sick or even fatally ill? How do the obligations imposed on an unwitting “implied fiduciary” differ from the pins stuck in dolls by Voodoo priests or warts once found on women’s bodies to prove that they were “witches”?

        Law is nowhere near as “scientific” as some suppose.

         
      • Colin

        February 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM

        For example, by means of law we can conjure up legal fictions like IBM, GM and Apple Inc. that don’t actually exist and give these fictional entities rights, duties, and liabilities.

        Actually, it’s more complicated than that. The idea isn’t that Apple itself has rights, but rather than all the people making up Apple–its shareholders and officers and employees–have rights, and they don’t lose those rights when they all act together and call themselves “Apple.” The rights are still individual rights, exercised collectively. But that winds up getting glossed over since the result is pretty much the same as saying Apple has rights.

        Law is nowhere near as “scientific” as some suppose.

        I don’t think law is scientific! It can be very confusing and sometimes murky. But the fact that it can be murky doesn’t mean it always is, and a lot of conspiracy theorists insist that perfectly clear things are somehow impossible to understand (or can only be understood through the lens of bizarre fictions, like the “corporation sole” doctrine Hovind tried to use).

         
      • Eric

        February 26, 2015 at 2:19 AM

        Colin, Thank you sir for your response.
        Believe me you are an asset to this blog because it will let some of us “Constitutionalists” know what we are up against in the courts at least to some extent. Thank you for responding. You say,

        1.> I’m not a mind reader, so I’m having to guess what you’re talking about. 2. > I don’t quite understand what you mean. 3. > I don’t understand what you’re asking. < end of your comments. ok, I apologize for not being more specific. Let's do this one step at a time. Re: 3 essential elements required for a Court to proceed

        Reynolds v. Stockton
        (Excerpt) The Court says,
        1. "The inquiry is, had the court jurisdiction to the extent claimed? Jurisdiction may be defined to be the right to adjudicate concerning the subject-matter in the given case. To constitute this there are three essentials: First, the court must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be adjudged belongs; second, the proper parties must be present; and third, the point decided must be, in substance and effect, within the issue. That a court cannot go out of its appointed sphere, and that its action is void with respect to persons who are strangers to its proceedings.

        2. ( I apologize for not having the following court case cite. I only cut & pasted it for my notes, but please, if you can, believe me when I say the following excerpts are true verbatim excerpts. What follows does show that today, & for quite a while only TWO essential elements are all that is required for a Court of Record to proceed. Statutory Court of Record, of course). The following is not from Reynolds V. Stockton BUT, HERE you will see that NOW, only TWO essential are required for a Court to proceed. This Court of Appeals says,

        3. (A “Here, the district court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, the district court had the authority to proceed.”). Therefore, the district court was armed with the two classic elements of jurisdiction to proceed with the case. < (See how it is now two elements instead of three required for a court to proceed? ) BUT, the court went on to say,

        However, we have, at times, spoken expansively of a third kind of jurisdictional defect, where a court exceeds its jurisdiction "even though it had jurisdiction of the parties and generally of the subject matter."

        Our Supreme Court has also noted that, today, "`[j]urisdiction over the subject matter' is commonly treated as a unitary topic," placing in doubt the continued utility of a third category of jurisdiction, over the particular subject matter, where the court exceeds its grant of jurisdiction over the subject matter generally."[A]t this stage in the development of the law one may doubt that the distinction serves any useful purpose." Id.

        RIGHT! AT THIS STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW. The DEVELOPMENT ?? or, the watering down and the eventual destroying of the law?

         
      • palani

        February 26, 2015 at 5:19 AM

        @ Colin “Your notion that representation is relevant to whether a person is a person is a bizarre fantasy”
        Sigh …

        As you refuse to use your imagination coupled with diligent study I must assist you somewhat. A person is something not tangible. It is likened unto a trust or a corporation and is a created entity. Well you might ask “how is such an entity created?” and the query is best answered by Hobbes early on in the formation of this political entity called ‘government’. In Ch XVI of his book LEVIATHAN he gives you the keys to governments kingdom when he derives three methods by which a person is created. 1) By any ACTION 2) By any WORD or 3) By REPRESENTATION. Now at some point in time a word like FUNGIBLE is created to describe a thing that may be represented. That thing might be CORN in which a contract for 10,000 bushels does not refer to a SPECIFIC 10,000 bushels but rather the filling of the contract by ANY 10,000 bushels composed of corn. In LAW a slave is a thing and not a person. The word FUNGIBLE may be used for anything that is a THING. That includes slaves, persons, corn or even TIME. For you see time itself may be represented by something called AN AGE. So your lack of imagination on how to apply the word is a limitation that you self-impose upon yourself. Your mind becomes shackled to concepts that your public school learning has tied you to.

        “you need to study what the law actually says”
        Actually not. Law is internal and external. Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know.(Bouvier) And law does not speak at all so it cannot really ‘say’ anything. Laws that are foreign need not be known because ignorance of a foreign law is really ignorance of a fact. The duty to understand is derived from either oath or contract. The laws which every man is presumed to know are those which have been preceded by a notice of some form.

         
      • russ

        February 26, 2015 at 12:36 PM

        Your writing reveals you are likely a “man or other animal” as defined in those wacky federal codes within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. If you choose to be an evolved ape within that wacky jurisdiction, good luck with that. I’m sure Congress will be happy to administer you. However, since animals don’t follow their codes very well, you more than likey broke a few codes today and are a criminal homo sapien in need of prosecution. Your postings provided a good chuckle so I thought it deserved a response. You may find this blog difficult to comprehend because it’s intended audience is not of your kind. No offense to your kind, of course, and you are always welcome here to see how the people live. Maybe one day, you will evolve to a point you act as a man created in God’s image, under His jurisdiction, and show compassion for a fellow man being persecuted unjustly.

         
      • Colin

        February 26, 2015 at 10:13 PM

        Eric,

        The best short answer to your question is that law changes over time. It always has, and always will. The upshot of the cases you cited is that there’s no practical difference between the two approaches to jurisdiction; it’s a change in how the courts conceptualize it, not their actual power.

        The best long answer to your question is that you should take one of the Coursera classes on law. I think you’d get a lot from seeing how actual legal research works.

         
      • Colin

        February 26, 2015 at 10:27 PM

        As you refuse to use your imagination coupled with diligent study I must assist you somewhat.

        If you’re using your imagination to understand the law, you’re doing it wrong. And you’re definitely doing “diligent study” wrong. You have misunderstood what fungible means, and have absolutely no basis in actual law for your strange idea that people are fungible, or things.

        A person is something not tangible. It is likened unto a trust or a corporation and is a created entity.

        This is obviously wrong. Human beings are tangible, and we are persons (or people, depending on your grammar—no difference in meaning). Corporations can also be people, but that doesn’t mean that all “people” or “persons” are intangible. Very, very, very basic logic here.

        Well you might ask “how is such an entity created?” and the query is best answered by Hobbes early on in the formation of this political entity called ‘government’.

        No, that is not the best answer to your question. If you want to know how a corporate entity is created, read a book on corporate law. If you want to know how human beings are created, ask your parents.

        Now at some point in time a word like FUNGIBLE is created to describe a thing that may be represented.

        “Fungible” does not mean “a thing that may be represented.” “Fungible” means that something is generic enough that any individual instance of his can substitute for any other instance—in other words, that it’s replaceable with no change in value. Corn is fungible because any one bushel of corn is just the same as any other bushel, so when you buy 10,000 bushels it doesn’t matter which 10,000 bushels you get. (Seriously, your own example points this out—it’s not about representation.) Paintings are not fungible, because each one is unique and you can’t just swap one for another. People are maybe the least fungible thing that exists, because (a) we’re all unique, and (b) we all care very much about that uniqueness.

        The word FUNGIBLE may be used for anything that is a THING.

        No. It can only be used for things that are replaceable with no change in value. There’s a whole doctrine of law called “specific performance” that relies on the fact that many things aren’t fungible. Art, like I mentioned, is the traditional example.

        So your lack of imagination on how to apply the word is a limitation that you self-impose upon yourself. Your mind becomes shackled to concepts that your public school learning has tied you to.

        You can imagine that the word means whatever you want it to mean. But if you want to have a conversation with someone else, at some point you’re going to have to learn what the conventional definition of the word is. Your imagination is not a good substitute for a dictionary or an education.

        “you need to study what the law actually says”
        Actually not.

        I think that pretty much sums up your approach.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 12:41 AM

        Colin, @ I sense a lack of diligent study on this topic and recommend your ideas mature before you rely upon such a falsehood.

        Odd that we give you something to read & you say you skimmed over it. YOU diligently study what we give you cause what is good for the Goose is good for the Goose-E.

         
      • Knatty Pine

        March 18, 2015 at 4:37 PM

        @ It is a fantasy to pretend that income is limited to business inside the District of Columbia.

        For all practical practicing appropriate Legislation purposes the District of Columbia is the United States & everything subject to ITS Jurisdiction. The Octopus in the Potomac with extending tentacles throughout the U.S.Territory.

         
  24. Eric

    February 25, 2015 at 7:30 AM

    Re: @ > fungible
    palani, it’s my understanding, excuse me, comprehension, that fungible only applies to, commodities, but then, I don’t know what I need to “expatriate” from either. Am I a lost cause?

     
    • palani

      February 25, 2015 at 7:44 AM

      @ Eric “Am I a lost cause?”
      I don’t know what a cause looks, sounds or acts like. Maybe a closed mind would be more accurate?

       
      • Eric

        February 25, 2015 at 8:12 AM

        palani,
        @ > Maybe a closed mind would be more accurate?
        Could be, but all ya gotta do is open it up. You said previously NOT A THING can be done to help Kent Hovind. I thought that was a closed minded statement. Still carry thar 5 Dollar Goldpiece in your “Purse”? :)

         
      • palani

        February 25, 2015 at 8:16 AM

        @ Eric “You said previously NOT A THING can be done to help Kent Hovind”

        Perhaps you misunderstood? I might have said “He got himself into his present condition and he is the only one who can get himself out.” If not then that is my meaning.

        Go back to James Allen “As A Man Thinketh” … everyone is where he is by the law of his being. To paraphrase Allen … this is a law that does not err.”

         
      • Eric

        February 25, 2015 at 7:14 PM

        palani
        February 25, 2015 at 8:16 AM
        @ Eric “You said previously NOT A THING can be done to help Kent Hovind”
        Perhaps you misunderstood?

        palani, You are technically correct. You DID NOT say, “not a thing” What follows is what you did say.

        palani
        January 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM
        @ Fritz “Any suggestions on what we can do re: Kent Hovind”
        Nothing. He is the one who got himself where he is at and if he can figure out the puzzle he has the keys to get himself out.

        See, Kent Hovind Spiritual warfare thread.

         
      • Eric

        February 25, 2015 at 7:50 PM

        palani, you say to Colin, > “You have not identified the cause.”
        That’s probably cause he doesn’t have to. TODAY, IF you ask a “Peace Officer” what is your probable cause for detaining me, the Peace Officer says, Probably cause I want to. I’m Serious. Well, not every time. Sometimes the answers are, well, I can’t say what they are on this blog or any other blog for that matter, & I would not anyway. OHhhhhhh I forgot to say on my last comment to you, My Bad, I apologize.

         
      • Eric

        February 25, 2015 at 9:26 PM

        palani,
        @ > Sure seems to have the attribute of a ‘thing’ to me
        ME 2.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 8, 2015 at 11:55 AM

        palani, I think what Eric was saying, IS, you did not say, Not a thing, you said, Nothing. palani there IS a humongous difference in the meaning of, Not a thing can be done, AND, Nothing can be done. Big difference in the meanings, palani, Big Big difference. I’m a lurnunn from Colin. palani, I like yer werk. >:) I really do. Do you like my purty smile? It’s all for you (:<

         
  25. dog-move

    February 25, 2015 at 1:14 PM

    ECCLESIASTES–7:29 God created man outright but man has created many devices. A United States person is an creation or artifice of man. What are you? How do you define yourself?

     
    • Eric

      February 25, 2015 at 9:21 PM

      dog-move,
      @ > A United States person is an creation or artifice of man.

      AND the Creator of anything is superior to whatever he/she/they created. How can Public Servants be “servants” & have sovereign immunity,& seemingly endless immunities,including quasi immunity? Quasi sounds qwayzee. or in dignified up townish lingo, qwayzi. It’s all quayzee.

       
    • Anthony Clifton

      February 26, 2015 at 4:48 PM

      I’m a bit curious about what to think…

      when someone who will claim to use the Bible as a defense
      and make a statement like this…

      Actually, law is–in at least some regards–a “book of magic spells”.

      http://www.darkmoon.me/2015/you-should-be-concerned/

      Actually,
      Law is mostly in the Old Testament where there are no
      “JEWS”
      because the “Jews” have an Anti-Christ TRUTH hating Religion
      of the Talmudic ECONOMIC TERRORISTS –
      who are genetically designed
      to shear the Israelite “Sheep” if they ever decide to worship
      and serve the dung god of Talmudic Judaism…

      so to conflate “Jews” with truth and or law is a serious misunderstanding…

      but how could any White Man/Israelite misconstrue the meaning of Jesus’ response…

      “To who do the children of the King pay Tribute?”

      Is there no validity at all to Isaiah 3:9 ?

      was Jesus lying @ John 8:44 ?

       
      • Eric

        February 26, 2015 at 7:50 PM

        Anthony Clifton
        February 26, 2015 at 4:48 PM
        @ > ’m a bit curious about what to think…when someone who will claim to use the Bible as a defense and make a statement like this…Actually, law is–in at least some regards–a “book of magic spells”.

        Anthony, I understood that The “someone” who said > Actually, law is–in at least some regards–

        a “book of magic spells” < was speaking of "SOME" man made law, NOT the Laws of "God." I

        call that magic spell law, ANIMAL MADE. I'm looking at my right hand at this time. My hand, was

        hand made, a, hand made hand (: hehe

        Anthony, are you still watching Color Cartoons on "Saturday"? IF so, what is your favorite color cartoon if I may ask. Thanks.

         
      • Anthony Clifton

        February 27, 2015 at 10:12 AM

        I prefer the early am cartoons from Queen Noor
        @ http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/

        usually the time spent is worth the wait

        cheers

         
      • Eric

        February 28, 2015 at 8:27 AM

        Anthony,
        I asked you previously, > Anthony, are you still watching Color Cartoons on “Saturday”? IF so, what is your favorite color cartoon if I may ask. Thanks
        Btw Anthony Saturday is also the 7th Day of the week. We still have 7 days in a week. “God” says the day that he blessed & made holy was, & still is the 7th day. Anthony,you said, Saturday is a good day for watching color cartoons on TV. Now Anthony I asked you again, are you still watching Color Cartoons on “Saturday”? & beloe is your most current answer.

        Anthony, You say, > I prefer the early am cartoons from Queen Noor
        @ http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/

        usually the time spent is worth the wait

        It’s worth the wait huh? Well, let’s just wait & see if it’s worth the wait. You answer does not carry much WEIGHT with the Good LORD.

         
      • Eric

        February 28, 2015 at 8:30 PM

        Anthony Clifton,
        @ >“To who do the children of the King pay Tribute?”
        @ > Is there no validity at all to Isaiah 3:9 ?
        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        Anthony, Is there no validity at all to what is written in Matthew 17:24-27

        Matthew 17:24 After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

        25 “Yes, he does,” he replied.

        When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?”

        26 “From others,” Peter answered.

        “Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

        @ > was Jesus lying @ John 8:44 ?
        Nope.

         
  26. dog-move

    February 26, 2015 at 9:26 AM

    Public servants are slaves within the corporation structure, similar to the taskmasters of Pharos day. My Septuagint called them accountants. They have a higher status within the corporate caste. I make bricks ( account ledger entries), I, within the corporate structure am a unit of production and as in the day’s of the Rule of The House of the Central Bank of Egypt the production is being painfully increased, thus making my life bitter. This may be good, It causes me to cry out to Yahweh unlike most persons over the land (TPC 1.04d) in the wilderness of No-People, in the land of the dead fictions. I realize the judgment of Yahweh God has removed his People from the soil and taken them captive to the plane of the captors who speak a language no-one understands.
    In man’s time no-one may ever understand, perhaps in the Lord’s time one can gain understanding. The wilderness of no-people, dead fictions use man’s time. In and upon the soil the Lord’s time is used by the living who have a voice for the Lord to delight in hearing.
    I believe I and others that obey the instructions in The Word and prepare knowing the Word for those living in the Lord’s time. The day’s of Pharo are now, Putting trust in demons and/or dead fiction derivatives FRN’s aint the place to put you trust. Silver is and always has been the peoples money, He is leading his People out now as in the Day’s of the Central Banking House of Egypt every bit as incideous as the Central Banks in the world today
    Any one out there in the brickmaking business out there that see things like this?

     
    • Eric

      February 26, 2015 at 1:24 PM

      dog-move,
      @ > Any one out there in the brickmaking business out there that see things like this?

      I do. We are on that “Jericho Road”, like in that song. Now it’s a one on one situation, for those of us who love our heavenly Father. Attorney Colin, apparently does not see the following the same way Justice Wilson saw it, but I know from many many mind boggling heartwrenching experiences including other people’s that the following is TRUE ABSOLUTELY. Justice James Wilson said,

      I shall have occasion incidently to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for 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.

       
  27. Peg-Powers

    February 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM

    I stand with you, Dog.

     
  28. Adask

    February 26, 2015 at 2:15 PM

    Colin has helped bring out the best on this blog. I am impressed by the diversity of comments, by the intelligence and articulation seen in those who comment here. I don’t see trolls. I don’t see wackos. I see sincere and intelligent men and women who are trying to understand the “system” and trying to make a positive difference. I’m sure that only a tiny percentage of blogs and websites on this country could match or exceed the quality of intellect displayed on this series of comments. I’m really proud of the people who read this blog and offer and share their insights. Working in concert, you folks are formidable. I love y’all. (Even you, MP)

     
    • Colin

      February 26, 2015 at 10:30 PM

      Thanks, I appreciate it. Obviously while I think some of Alfred’s ideas are wildly wrong, I respect him nevertheless. There are a couple of reasons for that (above and beyond the fact that I try to respect everyone, regardless of whether or not I agree with them). The first is that I think his ideas are not likely to hurt anyone else. Unlike the crooked tax protester gurus, he’s not selling terrible legal advice to people who will get in serious trouble for following it. Second, he’s quite willing to have a civil and reasonable conversation about his ideas. Much of the time, I’d rather associate with someone who’s wrong but willing to talk about it than someone who’s right but a jerk about it.

       
      • Eric

        February 27, 2015 at 3:52 AM

        Colin
        Really do appreciate you being here & I mean this sincerely. There ARE a few of us, believe it or not, who believe in, & try to live by the old time meaning of the Golden Rule & I just cannot grasp how you will say this is wrong. I believe if we somehow, could eliminate hate, greed, & jealousy, wow, we could have a paradise & all we could think about is what can we do for each other to “make their day even better”. HOWEVER, this just ain’t gonna happen, at least for a while. I need to ask you something, but first, let me say this, to hopefully show what some of us see. ok, now we have, in what I call the 1787 Constitution, Article 1, § 8, and as I call it, the Power Clause for the Legislative Dept. & in pertinent part, this power clause says, To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” One would think this is sufficient. What is lacking in it? Not a thing the way some of us see it. Why is this not sufficient? Here is my point. When we go to the 13th Amendment, we see this. This Amendment shall be enforced via appropriate Legislation. WHY is this necessary WHEN Article 1 § 8, should, it seems, should be sufficient without this added power clause? Article 1 § 8 should be sufficient to cover every other Amendment from the 13th on WITHOUT this additional power clause, i.e. This Amendment shall be enforced via Appropriate Legislation. THIS is where some of us began to “smell a rat”. NEXT, every Attorney I have talked with, EVERY ONE, & I have lost count of how many, but everyone says the 14th Amendment IS the Amendment that establishes Citizenship. Maybe so, but IF SO, then we see/have another problem. Article 2, in pertinent says, No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; NOW, IF Amendment 14 establishes Citizenship, we had no lawful elected Presidents BEFORE the 14th Amendment. BUT, some of us believe this citizenship status in the 14th Amendment created a DIFFERENT status than, & from the Citizenship status mentioned in Article 2 of the 1787 Constitution. What some of us see is a reversal of the order of things ordained & established by, We the people & the beginning of tyranny & oppression. As Justice James Wilson said, in Chisholm v. Georgia, “I shall have occasion incidently to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for 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.” Colin, some of us have felt the sting of current Government deception and oppression. YOU would have to be in out shoes to know what we mean.
        Do you have a P.O. Box address so I may send you a donation in appreciation of your help. I am not a free loader.

         
      • Eric

        February 28, 2015 at 1:20 AM

        Colin, you say, > “Obviously while I think some of Alfred’s ideas are wildly wrong, I respect him nevertheless.”

        Colin, IF you were a Judge, & if Alfred had to depend on your opininon, I’m sure he would be

        happy & gratified to know you respected him while he is sitting in a jail cell waiting for hopefully a

        change later on up the ladder. Could be that other Judges higher up may not respect Alfred’s wild

        ideas but nevertheless if they have any sense of decency & honor their oath to uphold, support, &

        defend the Supreme law of the land, & not necessarily legislative enactments, Alfred’s wild ideas

        might prevail. Could that be, maybe, possible? IF this short life IS all there IS, it doesn’t make any

        difference anyway in my opinion. IF this life IS all there IS, I would be on your side Colin. This, in

        that case, would be the right thing to do, it’s just that some of us don’t think that is the case. Case closed.

         
      • Eric

        February 28, 2015 at 7:15 PM

        Colin,
        You say, > The best long answer to your question is that you should take one of the Coursera classes on law.
        The best short answer to your long answer is this, & once again this court of appeals would not have said this IF we still had that THIRD element of Jurisdiction.

        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.

        CONCLUSION

        We reverse the injunction entered by the district court as part of Defendant’s sentence. The finding of contempt is affirmed because the district court had jurisdiction and the Defendant ignored the injunction at his peril.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 8, 2015 at 12:04 PM

        Hi Colin, You say, > I think some of Alfred’s ideas are wildly wrong
        You’re funny. You really are. We’re all wrong & about everything butcha Know what? I like ya. You make me laugh & I really do mean this.

         
      • Raymond & FRIENDS

        March 18, 2015 at 4:18 PM

        A question to Colin,
        Why don’t don’t we have statutory definitions for “man” that include “made in God’s image”?

        Colin’s answer,
        Because it’s not relevant or necessary to temporal, civil laws. No conspiracy.

        Well I know it’s not because of illiteracy, is it?

         
      • pesky nat

        April 1, 2015 at 10:38 AM

        Colin, You say to Alfred Adask,
        @ Seriously, you’re a smart guy who’s interested in the law. Take one or more of those online classes! I’d be very interested in your take on how experts talk about the law.
        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        Colin, what sayest thou about this,> Luke:11:45 One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us.”

        46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

        52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

        Colin, What about what, Jesus, ANOTHER EXPERT said? Any REBUTTAL from YOU, COLIN?

         
    • Eric

      February 28, 2015 at 4:20 AM

      Dear Alfred,
      You said previously that reading is guessing. < It sure is. The point I was trying to make was, WHY

      aren't there definitions that say, Man means & includes this that & so on, instead of Person means

      this that & so forth. I have never seen ANY statutory legislation that says, Man means blah blah

      blah. It is always Person means, or Individual means blah blah, ANYWAY, I do not see how your

      definition, let's call it, of Man, as you explain it, can be topped, beat, improved upon, etc. BUT, think

      of Colin as a Judge. He has already said your "idea" of what you say you are as a man is just a wild

      idea. To me, I believe this is what most Judges will think & this is what we are up against. I saw

      within the last 3 or 4 days where this female Judge told the Jury that they had decided wrong & to

      go back & decide it right. WOW. I don't know what happened after that. Anyway, IF I ever see a

      definition in any legislative definitions that say, Person means any man created in the image of God

      & has unalienable rights, < Then I will say I am a person in that sense but I don't believe we will

      ever see person, Individual, OR Man defined that way. I don't NEED the gov-co agents to tell me

      what I am, I will tell THEM what I am, but I don't think that will change their minds either. I could

      cares less if it does not change their minds. I like yer werk, Alfred Adask.

       
      • Adask

        February 28, 2015 at 5:09 AM

        Reading is necessarily guessing because most words have multiple definitions that can be found in dictionaries. When someone is writing we have to guess what definition he applied to each word he wrote. The dictionary doesn’t tell us which meaning a particular writer might’ve meant when he chose to use a particular word. The dictionary only lists the several meanings that he might’ve meant. Once we have the dictionary “list” of possible meanings, we still are left to guess whichever meaning the author really intended.

        And, in a lot of writing, the author doesn’t really know whatever meaning he intended. Authors sometimes use words simply because they “sound right”. If you ask them which dictionary definition he intended, he might not be able to say.

        And then there’s slang within neighborhoods and generations. What does “gay” mean? What does “bad” mean?

        The process of reading (or even speaking) is so complex and context-based that it’s something of a miracle that anyone can read anything written by someone else with any accuracy.

        Why don’t don’t we have statutory definitions for “man” that include “made in God’s image”? I think it’s because we implicitly acknowledge our sovereign/master by the words we use. If we are engaged in spiritual warfare, the government is not about to give us any statutory definitions that can be traced all the way back to God. But using definitions that don’t track back to the Bible, we might at least imply that that we do not believe in God and don’t serve him. Maybe.

        We talk about the “word of God”. But when we do, we almost certainly talk about the “definitions of God”. What are the definitions of the words that God used? I don’t know? Where do we find “God’s dictionary”? I don’t know, but it might be written on some of our hearts. Strong’s concordance is at least as confusing as it is helpful. When you see the variety of definitions that Strong’s suggests for a lot of its words, there is so much variety that it makes you wonder if Strong every really had a clue.

        In any case, if I use God’s words,then perhaps I am a man made in God’s image and one of His servants. Insofar as I rely on government’s statutory definitions, I’d bet that the government (at its highest levels) infers that I have chosen to identify with a secular, and or atheist, or even satanic system–but not identify with God’s system. In theory, the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom might allow each of us to use words ultimately defined by God rather than man. But that would be tough argument and would require enormous expertise in the use of language.

        You’re a brilliant man, Eric. I can see it in some of your writing. I know that you’ve studied a lot and studied intensely, even obsessively. But sometimes you can’t seem to avoid the impulse to be disrespectful of others or play the fool. I don’t find those impulses to be helpful. You have the capacity to make great contributions on your own so it’s irritating when you instead choose to bash garbage can lids together.

        You don’t have to be loved by this world, appreciated or even recognized to make a contribution that you can be proud of. If you do good work, somebody will find it. Maybe only one or two or ten. Somebody you may never see or hear of will still say “thanks” to you in their heart. Sometimes, that’s all you get. But, if you want to do something good, that has to be enough.

         
      • Colin

        March 1, 2015 at 11:26 PM

        Why don’t don’t we have statutory definitions for “man” that include “made in God’s image”?

        Because it’s not relevant or necessary to temporal, civil laws. No conspiracy.

         
      • Jethro!

        March 2, 2015 at 11:33 AM

        >>Why don’t don’t we have statutory definitions for “man” that include “made in God’s image”?
        >Because it’s not relevant or necessary to temporal, civil laws. No conspiracy.

        There are no statutory definitions for “man” because the created — governments, statutes, codes, etc. — has no authority to define its creator, man.

         
    • Eric

      February 28, 2015 at 11:03 PM

      Alfred, you say, “I’m not impressed by your attempt to play the “innocent”.

      Alfred, we have this much in common also. Just like you, I get no pleasure out of being called a

      pretender which is just another gentler way of saying I am a liar. You say things about me & all I

      asked is that you direct me to anything I said that would lead you to say those things about me.

      Anyway, I have not lied in ANY of my comments, & I honestly do not know anything I have said to

      make you say “But sometimes you can’t seem to avoid the impulse to be disrespectful of others or

      play the fool. I don’t find those impulses to be helpful”, and, > You have the capacity to make great

      contributions on your own so it’s irritating when you instead choose to bash garbage can lids

      together.”

      Anyway, Fare-the-well. Now smile for both of us.

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 13, 2015 at 9:16 PM

      To: Alfred Adask,
      @ A few of the people on this blog believe they know the entire truth about the “law” and “legal system” and are therefore not searching to learn more. They pontificate rather than search.

      I’m not allowed to tell you his initials but could one of these pontificators be,Lawernce Kenemore Jr?
      No response expected.

       
      • Adask

        March 14, 2015 at 5:34 AM

        None given.

         
  29. Eric

    February 26, 2015 at 3:42 PM

    Alfred I am using MP’s Acess to the Internet. BUT, I am not Michael. I said, to Colin, on this thread:
    February 26, 2015 at 2:19 AM
    Colin, Thank you sir for your response. Believe me you are an asset to this blog because it will let some of us “Constitutionalists” know what we are up against in the courts at least to some extent. What follows is something I believe you will like. Justice James Wilson said this in Chisholm/Geotgia

    Man, fearfully and wonderfully made, is the workmanship of his all perfect Creator: A State; useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. When I speak of a State as an inferior contrivance, I mean that it is a contrivance inferior only to that, which is divine: Of all human contrivances, it is certainly most transcendantly excellent. It is concerning this contrivance that Gicero says so sublimely, ‘Nothing, which is exhibited upon our globe, is more acceptable to that divinity, which governs the whole universe, than those communities and assemblages of men, which, lawfully associated, are denominated States*’.
    Let a State be considered as subordinate to the People: But let every thing else be subordinate to the State.
    ‘People of the United States,’ did not surrender the Supreme or Sovereign Power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is NOT a sovereign State.

    To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.

     
  30. Eric

    February 27, 2015 at 4:29 AM

    @ > Perhaps we should make a movie. Spiritual warfare, hmm? What could be more exciting?

    Hey moon, wake up. It’s time to rise & shine. Whatcha think about Alfred’s idea?

     
  31. Eric

    February 27, 2015 at 5:43 AM

    Toland,
    You say, > a man made in God’s image with inalienable rights.

    A District Attorney told me this, & I believe he told me the absolute truth when he said, TODAY, rights are privileges & privileges are rights & these are aka inalienable rights. As you know, Toland, privileges are granted or denied at the pleasure of a “superior authority”, of course usually for, “fee”. BUT, here is where he & I locked horns. I said, inalienable rights are not, UNalienable rights.I STILL believe this, but believing Backwoods Frontier Gibberish like this can getcha in lotza trouble. AND as the Judge said, you (meaning me) must read a lot of Kurt Vonnegut books. He said I like His books too enjoyed umm quite a lot.

     
  32. palani

    February 27, 2015 at 7:24 AM

    More from American Law Review #39

    The term (things) as used in the law, has also received another modification of meaning, so as to exclude from its signification persons, or owners of rights; that is to say, men generally are things, but when regarded as owners of rights are persons, and not things. Hence the word thing (res) has been defined as including “whatever is capable of being the subject of a right.”

    A “res” is a thing. A man is a thing. A person is not a thing. Therefore (logical conclusion) a man is NOT a person. Q.E.D. And wouldn’t it follow then that a RESident is a THING identified? But that leads to a complication. A MAN can be a thing identified but a PERSON cannot be a thing. Therefore no person can be resident. By being a resident you separate yourself from being any subject having a right.

     
    • Anthony Clifton

      February 27, 2015 at 8:48 AM

      but more importantly, to know the Truth about the Law one must
      be able to distinguish between the Sacred and the Profane

      John 8:44

      modern day so-called “Jews” who are in fact “PROSELYTES” to
      Talmudic Judaism are not {Gen 49 & Deut. 32} – “Israelites” –

      and just because a crime syndicate of MONEY CHANGERS
      & Pharisees print currency and OWN the Media and
      OPERATE a CRACK HOUSE called “CONGRESS” doesn’t
      mean that they have …

      “AUTHORITY”

       
    • Eric

      February 28, 2015 at 12:55 AM

      @ >A MAN can be a thing identified but a PERSON cannot be a thing. Therefore no person can be resident. By being a resident you separate yourself from being any subject having a right.

      If we all could agree about what anything means, i.e., word, this still will not eliminate greed, lust, hate & jealousy, will it? Once again, I like yer werk. < borrowed this from another poster. Regret I cannot remember his username but I like that different way of saying something.

       
      • Adask

        February 28, 2015 at 1:26 AM

        I always stand to be corrected, but for the moment I strongly suspect that a “person” is one party to a relationship between two or more people or entities. If I’m right, your status as a “person” depends on you having entered into an “relationship” with one or more other people or entities.

        If so, a legal person would be, by definition, a party to a legally-recognized relationship. That relationship might be contractual, fiduciary, political–perhaps even spiritual. That relationship might also be either written or oral, express or implied.

        If it’s true that a “person” is one “party” to a relationship, he will have certain rights or duties under that relationship which he is presumed to know and understand (agree to). If he sues or is sued based on an express or implied relationship, his rights and/or duties will be determined by the relationship itself. If he sues or is sued based on one relationship, he may not have the same rights or duties that he might have under another relationship. His status as person/party to a relationship may determined his status to sue or not be sued under that relationship.

        For example, if I have stock in a corporation, I am a “person” within the relationship(s) established by that corporation. I can speak at shareholder meetings of that particular corporation. If I do not have stock in a corporation I am not a “person” in relation to that corporation and probably have no standing to speak at a stockholder meeting.

        I’m also inclined to believe that all “relationships” are fictions. I.e., “relationships” have no mass, color, size–they do not exist in fact or objectively, but they do exist subjectively in our imaginations. We talk about our “relationships” to our employers, employees, spouses, children, parents,neighbors, etc., but those “relationships” exist only by virtue of a consensual agreement by the “persons” who are “party” to each fictional relationship.

        Again, I’m not saying that any of the previous observations are true. I’m only saying that these observations outline my hypothesis for understanding the fundamental nature of “persons”.

         
      • palani

        February 28, 2015 at 7:32 AM

        @ Adask ” I strongly suspect that a “person” is one party to a relationship between two or more people or entities”

        The first appearance of ‘person’ in any U.S. related document appears in Art IV of the Articles of Confederation:

        If any person guilty of, or CHARGED with treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall upon demand of the Governor or Executive power, of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offence.

        Art IV was introduced with the following opening sentence:

        The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union …

        My opinion would be that the personage being discussed within the framework of the Articles was created either by being found guilty or charged with something more than a simple misdemeanor in any State. The first instance of creation of a person is THE CHARGE by the originating State and the function of the Articles of Confederation was to agree to the return of an entity CREATED by the State back to the State where it was created.

         
      • Adask

        February 28, 2015 at 1:28 PM

        My view is that the person in your example was created by the individual’s status as one of the “people” of one of the States of the Union. By virtue of that individual’s status as one of the “people,” he not only gains certain rights, he gains certain obligations and liabilities. I.e., if that member of the “people” commits certain acts against the best interests of The United States of America, he can be charged with treason.

        If that same individual was a member/citizen of a foreign country like England, he might commit the same acts and be charged with a crime or even acts of war, but he could not be charged with treason.

        The fundamental “relationship” that lays the foundation for being charged with treason is, first, to be one of the people of The United States of America.

        Second, you must commit an act that violates the terms of Article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the Constitution which declares: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

        Note that this definition of treason uses the words “them” and “their” (highlighted by me) to refer to “United States”. “Them” and “their” are plural and tell us that the only “United States” that is protected by the Constitution against treason is the several (plural) “United States”. Thus, the only treason found in the Constitution is against the several “United States”–not a singular/national “United States” of the sort seen in the 14th Amendment. More specifically, constitutional treason can be only against at least one, maybe two or more, of the member-States of perpetual Union styled The United States of America.

        There may be one or more other crimes of treason defined in the statutes, but those “treasons” would probably be only against the singular “United States” found in the 14th Amendment and/or any of administrative districts, territories of states “of the United States”.

        Third, the constitutional definition of treason at Article 3.3.1 against the several States of the Union continues with a second sentence: “No Person shall be convicted of Treason, unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

        I believe that “Person” must first be a man who is one who lives in relation to that perpetual Union as one of the people of one of the States of the Union and/or of “The United States of America”. By virtue of his “relation” to the Union, he owes certain duties to that Union including allegiance. If he violates his duty of allegiance to that Union, I assume that violation could constitute “treason”. Another man who was a citizen of some other country would probably not be a “person” in relation to the Union and therefore might not have obligation of allegiance to the Union and be subject to charges of treason against the Union.

        The constitutional definition of treason fascinates me because it is only against the States of the Union. There is no constitutionally-defined treason against the government of the United States. The founders did not care to protect the new “federal” government against treason–they only sought to protect the States of the Union and/or the Union itself.

        Insofar as “this state” would seem to be antagonistic to, or even at war with, the States of the Union, it’s arguable that everything our current government does in or for “this state” (states “of the United States”) constitute acts of treason against the States of the Union.

         
      • Lawernce Kenemore Jr

        February 28, 2015 at 2:15 PM

        More of that old argument that is un supported by law

         
      • Adask

        February 28, 2015 at 2:59 PM

        Most of the people on this blog know that they don’t have the entire truth about the legal system and are therefore searching for it.

        A few of the people on this blog believe they know the entire truth about the “law” and “legal system” and are therefore not searching to learn more. They pontificate rather than search.

        But I’ve been to a couple of law libraries and I’ve seen that they’re composed of tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of books on the law. I don’t believe that any one of us could ever read and comprehend all of those books. Therefore, I conclude that no one (certainly including me) can truly know all of the law. Who knows “all of the law” about limited parts of the law like bankruptcy, income taxes, or Social Security?

        If it’s true that no one knows, or can know, all of the law, it’s unreasonable to claim that some “argument” is “unsupported by law”. None of us can say with authority that a particular idea is completely unsupported by the entire law of even one State, let alone the United States, or even The United States of America because none of us have ever read the entire law while we searched for express support for a particular argument.

        We can reasonably say “I’ve never seen legal support for that argument”–that could be true. We can reasonably ask, “Can you show me any laws that support your argument?” But we can’t reasonably say that there’s no legal support for a particular argument because none of us can read all of the law and therefore we can’t know for sure whatever laws might be hidden away in the masses of law books that might support almost any argument–no matter how goofy that argument may be.

        On top of which, the law is not fixed. It’s in a constant state of change. Even if it were true that yesterday, there was no legal support for a particular argument, today that could all be changed as new legal support may have been created a few hours ago, that most of haven’t heard of.

        When any of us go to court, we can win or we can lose. Even stupid arguments can win if they are presented in a convincing manner and if your adversary is too dumb to know how refute those arguments with contradictory facts or contradictory law.

        Some people talk about “The Law” as if it’s been inscribed in stone and set for the past 1,000 years. But modern, secular law is more like Jello than rock. It’s changing all the time. Nobody knows what all of man’s law was. Nobody knows what all of man’s law is. All we can ever say for sure is that on a particular day and time in a particular case, a particular judge and jury decided that the “law” was such-and-such. On the next day, another judge and jury could look at identical facts and conclude the “law” was something different.

        If those case decisions aren’t appealed, they will stand as the “law”–at least in relation to the particular cases.

        If those case decisions are appealed, the Supreme Court might ultimately rule that the “law” is what was said in the first case, or maybe the Supremes will declare that the “law” is what was said in the second case, or maybe the Supremes will come up with a completely new version of the “law” that’s inconsistent with both the first and second case decisions.

        The truth is that the “law” is always uncertain. The “law” is whatever works on a particular date and time.

        What is the “law” so long as there’s jury nullification? Sometimes, juries just say “screw the law–we like this guy and we’re finding him innocent”.

        The “law” is an alley fight where anyone can win and anyone can lose.

        Law is a martial art. You can train for it all of your life, and still get knocked out cold by some novice who throws a lucky punch or kick. If you want to play this game, you’ve got to embrace the uncertainty. It’s the uncertainty that makes it fun, scary, confusing, infuriating, etc. etc.

        But, anyone who argues that man’s law is really “The Law” in the sense of being fixed or reliable just doesn’t get what’s going on. It’s the MMA. It’s a fight to the finish. If you can fight, take your shot. If you’re afraid to fight and not lucky or blessed, you’d better stay out of the ring.

        In the end, the “law” is whatever works in a particular case–and nobody knows for sure what that might be.

         
      • Henry

        February 28, 2015 at 5:32 PM

        > “More of that old argument that is un supported by law”

        Time to get over your quaint notions about conclusions needing to follow from facts and logic, buddy. Reality is what you wish it to be. If it feels good, think it.

        Get with the program. Get with the future. Be part of the REVOLUTION. Bring it all down, man!

        O’Brien silenced him by a movement of the hand. “We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn – by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation -anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wished to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.”

         
      • Colin

        March 1, 2015 at 11:36 PM

        I always stand to be corrected, but for the moment I strongly suspect that a “person” is one party to a relationship between two or more people or entities. If I’m right, your status as a “person” depends on you having entered into an “relationship” with one or more other people or entities.

        You are not right. A “person” is any human being. Your additional definition is strange; where is “person” defined this way? (Because the normal definition of “person” is found both in the dictionary and in the law. Why ignore the definitions that exist and assume there’s a secret one out there waiting to be discovered?)

        If so, a legal person would be, by definition, a party to a legally-recognized relationship.

        It is not so. You can tell both by the lack of any actual definition that says so, and the fact that the law does not use the word in this way. (Neither do people in normal conversations, or authors writing great literature, or really anyone ever.)

        For example, if I have stock in a corporation, I am a “person” within the relationship(s) established by that corporation.

        No. If you have stock in a corporation, you are a person. (You are also a person if you don’t have stock in a corporation.) The corporation itself is also defined as a “person” as a legal fiction, in order to recognize the rights of the shareholders acting collectively under the corporate identity. But that has nothing to do with whether the people who own shares are people. They were people when they were born, and they’re people when they die. They’re people when they’re rich, and they’re people when they’re poor. They’re people whether they’re federal employees or self-employed or unemployed or homeless or President of the United States or Pope or muslim or christian or atheist or jew or any old thing. “Person” just means a person in the normal sense of the word. All the extra baggage is maybe fun to theorize about, but it’s just having fun—it doesn’t reflect how “person” is defined in the real world.

        If I do not have stock in a corporation I am not a “person” in relation to that corporation and probably have no standing to speak at a stockholder meeting.

        The fact that you don’t have standing to speak at someone else’s meeting doesn’t have anything t do with whether you’re a “person” or not. (You are a person.)

        Again, I’m not saying that any of the previous observations are true.

        Great—but I hope you’re also bearing in mind that they are definitely not true. It’s an interesting house of hypothetical cards, but it’s not anything like the real world or how the law works. Seriously, you’re a smart guy who’s interested in the law. Take one or more of those online classes! I’d be very interested in your take on how experts talk about the law.

         
      • Colin

        March 1, 2015 at 11:51 PM

        But I’ve been to a couple of law libraries and I’ve seen that they’re composed of tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of books on the law. I don’t believe that any one of us could ever read and comprehend all of those books. Therefore, I conclude that no one (certainly including me) can truly know all of the law.

        No one can know all of the law today; we’ve created a pretty complicated legal system. (Is a simpler one possible? In a country of hundreds of millions of people, I doubt we could get by with a system so simple that one person could be an expert in all of it.) But you don’t need to. Just like you don’t need to be an expert physicist to know that someone who claims to have perfected cold fusion in their garage with $50 of parts is wrong, and you don’t have to be an expert biologist to know that someone who tells you they rode a dragon to work is wrong. The legal fictions being tossed around here are so wild, and so contrary to the very basic nature of how law works, that it doesn’t take an expert to know they’re false.

        If it’s true that no one knows, or can know, all of the law, it’s unreasonable to claim that some “argument” is “unsupported by law”.

        This is not true. I agree that no one can know all of the law. It’s unreasonable to claim that the income tax applies only to corporations, or DC residents, or whatever. Those ideas are easy to test, and easy to disprove. It’s irrational to claim that there is a shadow network of secret territories that coincide with the states. That idea is obviously incompatible with our state and federal constitutions, statutory law, common law, history, and politics. It’s also completely unsupported by actual facts, making it clearly an unreasonable argument (if a fun one).

        In other words, I haven’t read the collected works of Shakespeare. But if someone tells me that Shakespeare once wrote, “The Seahawks were justified in deciding to pass the ball rather than run it, because a good coach has to be unpredictable and unpredictable times,” then I would be correct to say they were 100% wrong. It’s hypothetically possible that those words exist somewhere in Othello, but we can be confident that they do not.

        And if someone tells you that they do exist in Othello, you should ask them to show you. Not where they might be or what it would mean if they did exist, but to point them out. They couldn’t, just like the proponents of the pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo here can’t point out solid evidence of what they have to say. Because their ideas are not supported by actual facts. It’s just a house of cards, one fanciful notion piled upon another with no basis in reality.

        Law is a martial art. You can train for it all of your life, and still get knocked out cold by some novice who throws a lucky punch or kick.

        To extend the analogy, if you’re going to get in the ring you should focus on the real world. Make-believe games about how that guy might not be real, might be a hologram that just looks like a boxer, are not going to serve you well when the bell rings. If you want to actually be right, then just like in martial arts you should train seriously and like the pros do. Try taking one of those free online courses to see how the pros do!

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 16, 2015 at 7:35 PM

      Hello, palani, aka, Pearly White,
      @ The first appearance of ‘person’ in any U.S. related document appears in Art IV of the Articles of Confederation
      My understanding of the word “person” in the sense it is used here, is, just ONE singular man of the plural, People. E.g, it would not make sense to say, If ALL the people, guilty of, or CHARGED with,,, so what I’m trying to say, is, a person is just ONE of the many people. Where it is translated in the Bible that, God is no respecter of “persons” I believe this means he does not show favoritism, IF I am a RICH man & I cause you damage God rules in your behalf regardless if you are rich or poor.

       
  33. dog-move

    February 27, 2015 at 10:14 AM

    There are many stumbling-blocks in the land and over the land “moreover”. The participation and interaction on this blog has helped me immensely over the years as well as the printed essays and teachings that I read over and over trying to mold my mind. This blog helps me to identify the detestable devices in the fictional wilderness, in the un-peopled wilderness, which I define as horrific stumbling-blocks unseen by most.
    It is said that faith and understanding come from hearing the Word, well there aren’t “men”y shepherds in the land so I shepherd myself with help from the holy spirit. Reading the Word alound so I can hear it has helped my immensely.
    Waging war against the Beast is a duty I try to engage in daily, and it’s entirely plausible that there are those that enter this forum with the same devotion. Thank-you my fellow-brother Al. and all those others who seek understanding from the open portal and the unsealing of The Book of Life as promised by Daniel.

     
    • russ

      February 28, 2015 at 2:44 PM

      dog-move, my sentiments exactly. I pitch my tent with Elohim, and he pitches his tent with me. I let the Word wash my sould daily. The spirit has led me to leave the beast system created by those that exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. I am no longer enumerated, I no longer use FRN’s, I live “without the United States”. If one does not wish to live in Colin’s District of Columbia code world, where everyone is presumed a “person” under the beast system, one could get a passport in the status Alfred advocates, rebutting any presumptions and correcting the record to end confusion once and for all time amongst the public servants and their agencies. The passport has much utility. The passport evidence one provides in that passport process is the highest evidence one can use if one is invited to appear over a “controversy”. One could say it can even keep you out of the controversy in the first place. I am sure Colin does not presume to argue Citizenship/nationality issues on a passport.

       
      • Eric

        February 28, 2015 at 6:17 PM

        russ
        @ > Your message on, February 28, 2015 at 2:44 PM
        “Hallelujah” and thank you heavenly Father for russ & people like him !!!!!

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 2, 2015 at 1:08 AM

        russ, @ > I am sure he (Colin) is intelligent in what he was taught in the “legal” system “ < russ, He is telling the truth too as far as I can tell. IF you & I were taught what he was taught & "without more" we would think & believe the same way he does. I also say he has integrity because he IS telling it like IT IS. BUT, we have some problems here. which hopefully will be made clear as we proceed. E.g. you brought up, 42 U.S.C.1981. This as well as Title 42 § 1983, etc., is legislation passed pursuant to the power clause in the 14th Amendment, BUT, it's for citizens of the U.S & "subject to ITS jurisdiction". I believe you know this. The problem is, I think I can safely say that 99% of ALL people in the U.S ARE this kind of citizen and the entire system is set up to accomodate ITS citizens. This puts us 1 percenters between a rock & a hard place, The "devil" & the deep blue sea, literally. It is too complex to explain here. The ONLY thing I know to do is, have everything prepared ahead of time ,just in case we are dragged into their statutory courts. I say it's impossible to win without at least one other man to know what to do. IF you & I were together I firmly believe we could win, & PROVE some things. We are up against their schooling/training & it IS RIGHT to them. So it's all of them v. little ol me & you, I STILL say we can win & I say this based on what I see you have said, & say. (:<

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 2, 2015 at 1:20 AM

        russ
        @ February 28, 2015 at 2:44 PM
        Very well said, russ, & better than well said.

         
  34. Eric

    February 28, 2015 at 7:23 AM

    Adask
    February 25, 2015 at 10:02 PM
    @ >I think you’re fibbing, counselor.

    HAHAHHAHhahahahahHAHA. NOPE he aint kiddin either. HAHHAHhahahhaha, Tihnk I’m goin off the deep end. HAHHAHHAHHAHhahahahah BUT WHAT WAY TO GO !! HahhahahahHAh WHEW

     
  35. Eric

    February 28, 2015 at 9:24 AM

    To Alfred Adask,
    @ > What are the definitions of the words that God used? I don’t know? Where do we find “God’s dictionary”?

    1st Corinthians 2
    10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
    The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us

    @ > You’re a brilliant man, Eric.
    I have no desire to even want to be smart much less brilliant. I DO want to please the Good LORD but maybe I TRY too hard & mess up

    @ > But sometimes you can’t seem to avoid the impulse to be disrespectful of others or play the fool. I don’t find those impulses to be helpful.

    I cannot emphasize enough how GRATEFUL I will be if you will direct me to anything I have said to cause you to say this. Just any one thing will be sufficient. But, take into consideration how Rudy ended his message & I was with him 100%. So when I see anyone else ridiculing, mocking, belittling, etc., why Rudy said what he did does make me angry & I think rightly so, HOWEVER, if you will be so kind as to direct me to something I have said & any one thing, I will try & try hard to see what you see. We cannot see our own shortcomings, faults, etc. like we can see other people’s faults.

    @ >You have the capacity to make great contributions on your own so it’s irritating when you instead choose to bash garbage can lids together.

    IF you will help me by doing what I ask of you, direct me to anything I have said, so I may see how you &/or others may see what I said differently from what I meant, this may help me to make a good contribution as this what I want to do. I cannot remotely begin to write as eloquently & express myself like you do, but with your help & guidance I sure may be able to make an improvement. Thanks for your help. I gotta go to werk. See ya later.

     
  36. Henry

    February 28, 2015 at 8:17 PM

    Ah, but many words have MULTIPLE meanings, don’t they? And often these meanings are mutually contradictory!

    So, just because ONE meaning of a given word applies to you, it doesn’t follow that ALL meanings of that word apply to you.

    And just because ONE meaning of a given word does NOT apply to you, it doesn’t follow that NO meanings of that word apply to you.

    Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition:

    PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

    So a “person” is a man.

    Is a “person” ALWAYS a man? No, a “person” can also be a fiction.

    Is a “person” ALWAYS a fiction? No, a “person” can also be a man.

    Wait, if a “person” CAN be a fiction, doesn’t that mean a “person” is ALWAYS a fiction? No, a “person” can also be a man.

    But wait, if a “person” CAN be a man, doesn’t that mean a “person” is ALWAYS a man? No, a “person” can also be a fiction.

    Is a “person” ALWAYS a man? No, a “person” can also be a fiction.

    Is a “person” ALWAYS a fiction? No, a “person” can also be a man.

     
    • palani

      February 28, 2015 at 8:50 PM

      @ Henry “Is a “person” ALWAYS a man? No, a “person” can also be a fiction.

      Is a “person” ALWAYS a fiction? No, a “person” can also be a man.”

      And the law this violates is one that tells us not to yoke an oxen and a donkey. Things that are not like are never joined. I carry this thought to its logical conclusion … that anything that belongs in the corporate plane has no application to the plane of Man.

      You can try to violate this law yourself. Just grab a mason jar, put a couple cups of water in it followed by a cup of vegetable oil. Shake it up and try to get the two to join with each other.

       
      • russ

        March 1, 2015 at 12:21 AM

        Palani, I enjoyed this post very much. A man can create a person by contract if he requires. It is the person created WITHOUT his knowledge that should cause concern. One cannot force an undisclosed person on the man without full disclosure, knowledge and consent. That forced surety for the undisclosed person has happened to all of us, and that is constructive fraud. In fact, I have been following a man that came out of the beast system and sued his legal name. He has a declaratory judgment that stated the birth certificate/legal name operates as a state agency. He brought a claim and the government showed up in court to defend it. The govco is working on a settlement with him. He had to sign an NDA to get the settlement, but he has been interviewed 4 times before the last hearing and he shares details. If people only knew what the “legal society” does with the legal name.

         
  37. Roger

    February 28, 2015 at 10:37 PM

    A useful exposition, Henry.

    The target demographic a lot of these word-game hucksters are aiming at is gullible rubes with a weak grasp of logic and little ability to discern BS. That’s how they get away with so many classic fallacies.

    The hucksters wave their hands, flash some colored lights, set off a few puffs of smoke, and then waltz you around with an intentionally opaque, obfuscating word-game.

    The objective of these huckster is to either a) sucker you out of your hard earned cash or b) misdirect you down a convoluted cul-de-sac to prevent We the People effectively resisting the NWO takeover, or both.

     
    • Toland

      March 1, 2015 at 1:18 AM

      Roger, it’s a standard low-grade hustle, plain and simple.

      1. Pick a word with a hot-button definition that incriminates anyone who uses it.

      2. Find where the “enemy” has used this word, never mind that the “enemy” used a definition of the word that is entirely different from the hot-button definition.

      3. Banking on the ignorance and gullibility of your audience, use out-of-context quotes and fallacious logic to falsely accuse the “enemy” of using the hot-button definition.

      4. When confronted with a solid rebuttal of your false accusation, pretend you didn’t see it, run away, lie low for a while, and then pop back up when the coast is clear to continue your deception.

       
      • Roger

        March 2, 2015 at 5:57 AM

        Yet the “run away and hide” ploy has its limitations.

        When the heat’s really on, and a clean getaway looks unlikely, the subtle deceiver will often recourse to the “see how honest I am” ploy of pretending to address objections, while in fact contriving to bog down the advance of Truth in a verbose mire of muddied waters.

         
  38. palani

    March 2, 2015 at 6:47 AM

    This is an accurate picture of the current state of Law in the U.S.

     
  39. dog-move

    March 2, 2015 at 5:46 PM

    Thanks Russ, I’m still trying to figure this coming “out of her” procedure. It is a big step and a leap of faith. This blog is a teaching tool for us learners to strive to grow and understand. This blog has some very intelligent and wise teachers. There are probably many like myself who wear out the doorstep of this blog trying to wrap our minds around this convoluted system, wanting to be free some day, firmly on the soil, and out of the U.S. inc. . The Passport, any direction on this. I wish to learn and study this manner of status achievement. thanks d-m — it may be helpful for others ;;

     
    • Colin

      March 2, 2015 at 7:58 PM

      Probably what you want to accomplish isn’t possible, since (if you’re taking bizarre notions like Russ’s seriously) you’re basing your goals on very false assumptions. But if you want to try, please consider actually testing the terrible advice you get from “sovereign citizens” and tax protesters. Ask to see the cases they’ve won, to test whether their ideas actually work or are just the result of an overactive imagination. If they can’t show you actual victories, your BS detector should start going off.

      Also, check the things you hear against sources like the Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html). You don’t have to believe everything you read there, obviously, but compare those citations and statements against what you read elsewhere. Can they explain away those cases? Do they have cases that support their contrary positions? Tax protester/sovereign citizen arguments typically fall apart with the slightest scrutiny, so be skeptical and analyze their theories rigorously.

      And, as I’ve recommended many times here, if you really want to know how the system works, then learn it! There are lots of free classes in American law available. Whatever your perspective, getting a feel for how the system actually works can’t be a bad thing.

       
      • Pesky Nat

        March 13, 2015 at 12:23 AM

        Professor Colin, AT law licensed attorney,
        @ And, as I’ve recommended many times here, if you really want to know how the system works, then learn it.
        I learned about how it works Professor. I learned the HARD WAY TOO.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 14, 2015 at 2:21 AM

        Colin,
        @ But if you want to try, please consider actually testing the terrible advice you get from “sovereign citizens” and tax protesters

        You got that 100% right. BUT, What about that 3rd essential element that comprised jurisdiction of any court? WHY was that 3rd element discarded? Since this 3rd essential element was required, WHY is in no longer required? WHO made the 3rd ESSENTIAL element no longer required.

        Reynolds v. Stockton 140 U.S. 254 (1891)
        Jurisdiction may be defined to be the right to adjudicate concerning the subject-matter in the given case. To constitute this there are three essentials: First, the court must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be adjudged belongs; second, the proper parties must be present; and third, the point decided must be, in substance and effect, within the issue. That a court cannot go out of its appointed sphere, and that its action is void with respect to persons who are strangers to its proceedings.

        Who would be “strangers to its proceedings”? If you are still here, please answer when you can. Thanks a bushel & barrel.

         
    • russ

      March 2, 2015 at 8:36 PM

      Dog-move, if you forward an email to Alfred, and he forwards to me, I will put you in touch with the man who assisted me in my passport process. He contracts from without the United States.

       

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